Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Disabled Facilities Grants

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review his policy on the provision of mandatory and discretionary disabled facilities grants.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo): This matter is being kept under review, to ensure that grant assistance continues to help disabled people least able to afford the cost of house adaptations.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that local authorities are having to make loans to many applicants because of their inability to meet the scheme's means-testing arrangements, which require certain contributions? In many instances the loans will never be repaid because of applicants' financial circumstances. Is the Minister further aware that some elderly and disabled people are being forced into permanent care because of their inability to make a contribution for adaptations under the scheme? Bearing it in mind that the scheme's means testing arrangements run contrary to the Government's care in the community proposals, will the Minister review the operation of the means-testing arrangements and of the scheme generally?

Mr. Yeo: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is questioning the principle of means testing, which his party did not oppose in Committee. If he is, it appears that he wants us to spend more taxpayers' money helping the best-off. If the hon. Gentleman is merely questioning the way in which means tests are undertaken in respect of adaptation grants, I assure him that we will review the system, which has been operating for less than eight months. We should like it to be up and running for a year before we undertake such a review. Nevertheless, we shall do that this summer and we will consult the associations that represent the local authorities which are administering it to ascertain how well it is operating.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend recall that the original commitment in the consultation document was for

a non-means tested operation of the grant scheme? Given that there is means testing now, is my hon. Friend aware that many disabled people are now producing examples of the way in which the system is working adversely? When he undertakes his review, will he examine carefully the need to set different criteria for means testing in respect of the disabled?

Mr. Yeo: We will certainly examine the criteria that have operated during the first year and I shall be glad to hear the views of my hon. Friend, whose expertise in the subject is well known. The new scheme was intended to widen the range of home improvements that could be paid for by the mandatory facilities grant. There is no restriction on the size of the grant or on who can apply for one. We aim to allow more disabled people to secure more help and to enable them to live more independently and comfortably at home, if that is possible. In many cases, that objective has been achieved.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I acknowledge the dilemma that presents itself in respect of means testing, but will the Department give special consideration to new build houses, so that there might be savings to a community in the long term in the form of new homes constructed to specifications that are designed to help the disabled?

Mr. Yeo: We have considered that. Ideally—this objective has the support of most of the voluntary organisations concerned—all new houses should meet standards of acceptability and convenience for the disabled, regardless of whether they will in the first instance be occupied by a disabled person or by a family that has a disabled member.

Competitive Tendering

Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish the results of investigations into the costs to local authorities of the compulsory competitive tendering legislation under the Local Government Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): Research is being carried out by the Institute of Local Government Studies. We hope to publish the report on its first year's work in the near future. That research has shown that the cost of tendering is some 2·5 per cent. of total contract costs and that CCT has produced average savings of just under 6 per cent. in the annual cost of providing services—often linked to a higher quality of service.

Mr. Rooney: Is the Minister aware that thousands of contracts have been called into question throughout Britain on the ground of quality? Is he further aware that hundreds of headteachers have complained about the low standard of cleaning in their schools? Will he comment on the economic consequences of thousands of part-time, low-paid local authority workers losing their jobs as a consequence of the legislation?

Mr. Key: Of course I have read the report. That is why we are anxious to evaluate the projects as they are carried out. The Department is responsible, under legislation, for ensuring that the section 13 or section 14 notices may sometimes have to be issued. I hope that the hon.


Gentleman will agree, however, that we are interested in the quality of service and the value for money offered to the charge payers who are financing that service.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my hon. Friend agree that the competitive tendering legislation has enabled Conservative councillors on Medina borough council to cut community charge not once but twice, benefiting charge payers in the Isle of Wight?

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Competitive tendering has played its part in that. I congratulate Medina borough council, which has cut its community charge by some 50 per cent. this year.

Mr. O'Brien: Is it true that the survey will not reveal any substantial financial savings for local authorities? Will the report outline the position before and after compulsory competitive tendering? I put it to the Minister that a substantial number of local authorities spend a great deal of time and money on drawing up tenders, only to find that the private sector is simply not interested in tendering.
Will the report also give comparisons relating to the quality and the full value of the service provided for poll tax payers and will it mention the decline in the proper training of personnel? I suggest that CCT represents a further failure of the Government's local government policies.

Mr. Key: The hon. Gentleman ignores the Audit Commission's claim that voluntary competitive tendering can produce savings of between 10 and 30 per cent. That is a substantial amount. We are, of course, always considering whether there should be more compulsory competitive tendering—whether the scheme should be increased. That can only be in everyone's interests. I do not think that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) would disagree. He wrote on 15 February:
It would be foolish to pretend that the jolt given to many local authorities has not had some beneficial effect in stimulating their own concentration on quality as well as improved managerial practice.

Hostel Beds

Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of hostel beds available (a) in London each night and (b) in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Sir George Young): The latest estimates available show that the total number of hostel bed spaces in housing association hostels, resettlement units, probation and after-care hostels and those run by local authorities in London is 22,383, and 60,142 in England as a whole. My Department does not hold figures for the rest of the United Kingdom. I take this opportunity to thank the voluntary agencies for their hard work in developing the additional places now coming forward under the rough sleepers initiative and for their help in ensuring that the cold weather emergency provision continues to remain open for an extended period.

Mr. Squire: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell us whether at those levels demand continues to be outstripped by supply—whether spare beds are

available? Will he also tell us whether the two emergency hostels opened in London during the recent severe cold spell remain open?

Sir George Young: I assure my hon. Friend that, even on the coldest night, space was still available for those sleeping rough in London. The Paddington Green hospital, which is the largest of the emergency cold weather shelters, will stay open for six months and it is planned that the Soho shelter should remain open until the middle of April.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware of the considerable problem of homelessness in Merseyside, stretching from the Wirral to my constituency, Southport? Has he any idea what he may give the region to deal with that problem? He has recently given certain figures, but most relate to London. How much will go to Merseyside?

Sir George Young: I believe that there is a substantial number of empty properties in Merseyside. That certainly applies to Liverpool, which has experienced a good deal of emigration. One of the difficulties facing Liverpool city council is the excess of homes and I see no reason why anyone should have any reason to sleep rough in Liverpool of all places.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing and implementing a package of measures that have gone so far to solve this difficult problem. Will my hon. Friend's Department be prepared to carry out research into whether homeless youngsters have been habitual truants from school, and thereby slipped the leash of parental and teacher control at an early age, and discover whether useful and constructive measures could be derived from such research?

Sir George Young: My Department has commissioned some research from York university to discover more about the motivations and histories of the homeless. A substantial number of people who have been sleeping rough were in care before they came to London. Local authorities have a responsibility to ensure that once children reach the age at which they are no longer their statutory responsibility, those children still have somewhere secure to go so that they do not end up on the streets.

Mr. Soley: Is not this a problem of the Government's own making? We did not have homeless people sleeping rough in the streets like this until we had a Tory Government. Only alcoholics and some mentally ill people slept rough before this Government came to office. I can say that as I have experience as a probation officer in the King's Cross area of London. Is the Minister aware that housing organisations and the Labour party have warned the Government that temporary hostel beds are not the answer? The real answer is real homes for real people who are sleeping in the snow. We want to know now whether the money that the Government are talking about providing will continue to be provided to the many voluntary organisations that have written to the Minister's office, but which have not received answers telling them whether they can continue the work that they started during the cold weather.

Sir George Young: If I may say so, that is a rather simplistic analysis. The problem of rough sleeping


predates 1979. Responsibility does not rest with the Conservative party. The Manchester Evening News has reported that:
Homeless people are sleeping rough and begging on Manchester streets while 5,000 council houses and flats stand empty.
For every hostel space in London, there are two move-on spaces. We are offering people the opportunity of permanent accommodation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined to build on the momentum that has been developed and bring about a situation in which no one has to sleep rough in London.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question does relate to the United Kingdom.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Did my hon. Friend see the recent programme by—surprisingly—the BBC, in which an Aberdonian youth who was sleeping in a box in London was flown back to his mother in Aberdeen and interviewed? He said that the last thing that he wanted to do was to stay in Aberdeen and take a job because he could beg £60 a day in London, and he did not stay in a hostel because he could keep the money if he did not spend it. He was returned by the BBC to London on a British Airways flight. Does not that say something about homeless people?

Sir George Young: I did not see that programme, but there is a small number of people who abuse the hospitality of people in London by begging instead of seeking work. For every case like that, there are some genuine cases of people who do not want to sleep rough. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that we must deal with the abuses, but we must also make provision for those who do not want to sleep rough and would dearly like to move on to permanent accommodation.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a modern and fair rating system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a modern and fair rating system; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): Our review of the structure and finance of local government will look at all the options, including domestic property taxes. I hope to be able to give a first indication of our thinking in the spring.

Mr. Patchett: Does the Secretary of State agree that the poll tax is now untenable? When will he admit that it should be abolished?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is aware that all those matters are being considered. When we have something to say, we will say it, but not until then.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Callaghan.

Mr. Cryer: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Winnick: In view of the comments that the Secretary of State made about the poll tax when he was a

Back Bencher, will it be possible for him to remain in government if it is decided by the Cabinet to retain what he himself described as a Tory tax?
Has the right hon. Gentleman any comment on the absurd statement by one of his predecessors that if the rating system was brought back, there would be rioting on the streets? The only rioting that has occurred has been brought about by that Tory tax, the most unfair tax that has ever been introduced—the poll tax.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that many millions of people now realise that the community charge reduction scheme is bringing them substantial reductions in community charge.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reputation over many years for radical policies is well deserved and that the best way in which he can proceed in this matter is by radical change?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is extremely flattering. I shall, if I may, refrain from comment until we produce the conclusions of the review.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable support on the Conservative Back Benches for national expenditure on schools and further education? That would achieve two objects. It would halve the community charge and make all schools grant-maintained schools responsible to parents and not inspectors, which would improve education throughout the country.

Mr. Heseltine: I know how much my right hon. Friend is concerned about this matter. He will know from speeches that I have made that I am a strong supporter of the grant-maintained school principle. When suggesting the switch, my right hon. Friend does not draw my attention to the national taxes that he would wish to be increased to fund his proposals.

Mr. Gould: Will the Secretary of State reassure the millions of people who want to see the back of the poll tax by making it clear that he has refused to be bound by the ideologues in his own party and that he at least is prepared, indeed anxious, to see the abandonment of the poll tax principle?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is never possible to discern any ideologues on the Conservative side of the House because there are so many on the other.

Mr. Hayes: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is doing his best to see that the landed gentry do not riot too much on the streets of Tewkesbury, but will he do what he can to assist my poor beleaguered constituents in Harlow? Their left-wing authority has increased its expenditure by 44 per cent. this year, announced a community charge of £459, and eaten into reserves. When the review is presented, will my right hon. Friend protect people from left-wing authorities such as Harlow?

Mr. Heseltine: As my hon. Friend is aware, by and large, it is beyond any question the practice for Labour authorities to charge significantly more community charge than the Conservatives.

House Insulation

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what help is offered to local authority tenants to insulate their homes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry:): The Government are firmly committed to encouraging greater energy efficiency in local authority dwellings. Substantial capital resources are made available to local authorities to improve their housing stock, and advice and grants are available to tenants on low incomes to insulate their homes.

Mr. Battle: Is the Minister aware that the home insulation scheme has been reduced to the programme that is run by the energy action grants agency scheme in Newcastle and that that is leading to cowboy contractors knocking on the doors of pensioners and people on low incomes, asking for deposits in advance and then disappearing? Would not it be better to have a home insulation scheme that is properly administered and monitored by local authorities to prevent that unscrupulous abuse, to ensure that the scheme results in home improvements for council tenants and that poor people are not left in the cold?

Mr. Baldry: The home energy efficiency scheme is an excellent scheme, to which £27 million has been made available for this financial year. That is a significant increase on the level of help that has been made available to low-income households in the past. The scheme expects to undertake 200,000 insulation jobs this year. Network installers have been registered in all parts of the country and all low-income households have access to a network installer. If the hon. Gentleman has a scintilla of evidence about the scheme not working properly, I suggest that he makes it available to my hon. Friends in the Department of Energy. The energy efficiency agency that is running the scheme is highly reputable and, I am sure, will be concerned about any suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman that any network installer is not coming up to standard. Unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to give that evidence, he should stop decrying the scheme.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that a lot of money is wasted on insulation? Does he further agree that what we want is a uniform national scheme of rating for energy efficiency for buildings? At the moment, we have the national home energy rating scheme and Starpoint. Will my hon. Friend get in touch with his opposite number at the Department of Energy and ask the Department to initiate a uniform scheme, which would make it a great deal easier for my hon. Friend to honour the undertaking that his Department has given to review building regulations to take account of energy efficiency factors in home construction?

Mr. Baldry: The methodology on which both those schemes are based has been developed by the Building Research Establishment. I have no doubt that the Starpoint and national home energy rating schemes are considering ways to ensure that there is the least possible confusion about home energy rating for local authorities and home owners.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister must be aware that about 170 million tonnes of carbon dioxide are thrown up into the atmosphere every year from homes in Britain. Will

he admit that the scheme for which his and other Departments are responsible, which seeks to reduce our energy consumption, are miserable and, at the moment, hardly doing anything to meet the problem of global warming or even our commitment to stabilise the emission of carbon dioxide by 2005? Will the Government show a radical response and announce some positive schemes that would reduce significantly the amount of carbon dioxide that is thrown into the atmosphere from homes in Britain?

Mr. Baldry: The amounts of money that are being made available to promote energy efficiency improvements just among local authority tenants are substantial; 25 per cent. of the £3·5 billion of local authority capital investment was spent on improving heating and home insulation last year; 25 per cent. of the £450 million of estate action resources went on heating and insulation improvements; £60 million is being spent on the energy efficiency demonstration programme and, as I have already made clear, £27 million has been made available for the home energy efficiency scheme. The sums of money allocated to promote energy efficiency among local authority tenants alone are rightly substantial because we want to ensure maximum energy efficiency throughout our housing stock.

Homelessness

Mr. Bidwell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate on the current levels of homelessness in Greater London.

Sir George Young: In the third quarter of 1990, local authorities in London accepted responsibility to secure accommodation for 9,350 households they found to be homeless. The latest estimate of the voluntary groups dealing with rough sleepers is that there were about 1,000 people sleeping rough in seven main areas in central London at the end of January. Many of those are now using the emergency shelters and other accommodation provided under our initiative.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the Minister comment on the vicious and brutal 103 per cent. increase in rents for council house tenants since the Tories came back into power in the London borough of Ealing? Does not he understand that that is bound to lead to extra homelessness among those who cannot afford to pay?

Sir George Young: I am more than happy to comment on the increase in rents in the London borough of Ealing. It is one of the many legacies that the people of Ealing have had to bear from the outgoing Labour administration, along with a record 66 per cent. increase in rates three years ago. The reason for the rent increase in the London borough of Ealing, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, is the irresponsible budget set a year ago by the outgoing Labour administration. The council assumed that it would make a profit on private sector leasing which it was never likely to make.

Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend do something serious and immediate about the number of empty homes in councils controlled by the Labour party in London? There are 10,000 in just four Labour-controlled boroughs. Will he also do something about the millions of pounds of uncollected rents in Labour local authorities? Perhaps he


will invite Opposition Members to chase their local authorities rather than make vacuous propaganda points about homelessness in London.

Sir George Young: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In London about 20,700 properties owned by local authorities are empty and about £360 million in rents is uncollected. There are substantial resources available which could be used to meet housing need in London.

Mr. George Howarth: rose——

Mr. Tony Banks: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. George Howarth.

Mr. Tony Banks: Oh come on. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) represents the Tory party in London.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is called regularly. He cannot expect to be called every day on every question of his choice.

Mr. George Howarth: Does not the Minister recognise the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) about the connection between the provision of housing at affordable rents and the level of homelessness in London? As regard the 103 per cent. rent increase in the Conservative-controlled London borough of Ealing, will he confirm that the increase would have been even higher if the Minister had not arranged for the authority to be bailed out to the tune of £5 million? If he will confirm that, will he also say that such provision should be made to local authorities throughout the country to cushion the rent increases that his Government are forcing on them?

Sir George Young: I must make it clear that, for obvious reasons, I played no part in the negotiations between the London borough of Ealing and my Department. The Government have taken several steps to increase the supply of affordable accommodation in Greater London, which is the subject of the question. Some £300 million has been made available, part of which is aimed at bringing voids back into use. Some of that is being spent under the tenants' incentive scheme to create vacancies in London. Some has financed homes under the private sector leasing scheme. On top of that, there is a substantial increase in the budget available to the Housing Corporation, providing an increase in the supply of affordable accommodation. The Government are taking several steps to deal with the problems that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what saving in the community charge there would be in 1991–92 to a couple living in Dacorum in a property with a rateable value of £200, under his community charge reduction scheme.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): The community charge reduction scheme will take hundreds of pounds off the bills of many people whose rates were low. The couple in my hon. Friend's constituency would have had a rates bill near the national average, but even so might expect a reduction of about £64 between them.

Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that Conservative-controlled Dacorum borough council has reduced its community charge by £33 per head and that one reason for that is that 98 per cent. of those registered have paid? Is he aware the council has gone about running the borough in an extremely efficient way, to the great advantage of those who live there? Does not that contrast with the nearby Labour-controlled council of Watford, which has a community charge of almost £100 more, with a cost of collection of £19 per head, compared with £7 per head in Dacorum? In those circumstances, will my hon. Friend advise the people of Watford and other areas of Hertfordshire to do what three opposition councillors in my area did last year and join the Conservative party?

Mr. Portillo: I endorse my hon. Friend's advice. It is remarkable that the community charge in Dacorum has been reduced by 8 per cent. Even so, it is remarkable that the community charge reduction scheme would give a couple in my hon. Friend's constituency a reduction of £133 if they were on three quarters of the average rateable value. Watford has no excuse in looking to the county, because Hertfordshire, which is under Conservative control, is spending £16 below the standard spending assessment, so the entire burden and more must be the responsibility of Watford.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that no amount of tinkering with the poll tax in Dacorum or anywhere else will make it acceptable? Can we expect the Secretary of State to make a better job of finding a method of financing local government than he did in 1972 on local government reorganisation when in charge of the Standing Committee on the Local Government Bill, the disastrous results of which we are still trying to deal with 18 years later?

Mr. Portillo: From the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I thought that his sense of geography was not strong. From the second part, I thought that his sense of history was not strong.

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the community charge levels for London boroughs in 1991; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Portillo: Westminster city council has set an example by planning a charge of £176. However, it seems already that some councils are planning charges of over £400: Hounslow, Merton, Hackney, Camden and Islington.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Ealing's Conservative council on reducing the former Labour council community charge by £40 to under £400, despite 10 per cent. inflation? Does he accept my implacable opposition to council rent increases of £10 a week from 1 January and of £17·87 a week from 1 April? I express my implacable opposition even though the previous Labour council was entirely to blame. Can my hon. Friend find a way of helping the council?

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend draws attention to the extraordinary achievement of Ealing in bringing down the community charge, given the horrific legacy to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning referred a moment ago. What the council has managed to


do on the community charge is remarkable. I regret that rents have had to go up so much, but there is no doubt where the responsibility lies. The Government have been as co-operative with Ealing in its difficult position as they can be, but in the end the sins of the old Labour administration will be visited on the people of Ealing.

Mr. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that in Lambeth we face appallingly savage cuts as a result of the Government's insisting on the writing off of about £40 million of debt? Why cannot we do what any business would do and write off that debt without treating it on the one hand as money that has to be added to the poll tax or, on the other, as expenditure to be deducted from capped expenditure? Why cannot we tackle it sensibly as a business would?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman seeks to compare Lambeth with a business. I am afraid that I find that comparison far-fetched.

Planning

Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the remarks by the Minister for housing on the potential beneficial impact of a well-designed new town or village on the landscape.

Mr. Heseltine: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to a recent speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to a conference on "Tomorrow's New Communities". I have had no direct representations on his remarks.

Mr. Favell: My hon. Friend is right; I am referring to that brave speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. Everybody is in favour of the green belt; it is a valuable asset. But if we are never to build beyond the green belt in countryside which is accessible, valuable or beautiful, all building will have to take place within towns. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of people live in towns and that they, too, want to be able to see trees and to have somewhere to let the dog run and for their children to play?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most interested in what my hon. Friend said. He will know that we issued a consultation paper on the subject. We shall be giving our definitive views on the matter shortly and I shall take into account what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Turner: Is the Secretary of State aware of the devastating effect on the landscape and estates close to limestone workings? It is not always a happy story. In my constituency families are suffering seriously as a result of old limestone workings and they have turned to the Government for support. However, we have not yet heard anything positive from the Government and it would be welcome if the Secretary of State could tell the people of Ettingshall Park Farm in my constituency that some relief will be offered to them soon.

Mr. Heseltine: Had I been able to anticipate the hon. Gentleman's question I should have answered it today instead of tomorrow.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest percentage figures of the number of community charge payers who have made payments for the recent year in (a) Langbaurgh, (b) Middlesbrough, (c) Hartlepool, (d) Stockton and (e) North Tyneside; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Key: Payments had been made by 31 December 1990 by 88 per cent. of charge payers in Langbaurgh; 89 per cent. in Middlesbrough; 86 per cent. in Hartlepool; 83 per cent. in Stockton; and 94 per cent. in North Tyneside. In most areas the proportion is now nine out of 10, which is very encouraging. However, Iangbaurgh collected only 51 per cent. of its budgeted yield in the first nine months of the year, compared with 84 per cent. in North Tyneside.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but not very, as it shows how inefficient Langbaurgh council is. It has been able to collect only 51 per cent. of the yield that it should have collected by now. Is there anything that my hon. Friend's Department can do to appoint an inspector or someone else with competence to Langbaurgh council to sort out the inefficiency which has meant that many people have yet to receive their community charge bills, let alone pay them?

Mr. Key: As my hon. Friend says, there is a wide variation in the efficiency of local authorities' collection. Many local authorities have not used the collection powers available to them.

Environment White Paper

Mr. Caborn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on implementing the proposals set out in the White Paper on the environment.

Mr. Heseltine: The Government continue to make very good progress in implementing their White Paper strategy.

Mr. Caborn: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but does he agree that the implementation of many of the recommendations in the White Paper could proceed faster if resources were made available to local authorities to carry them out? On 1 April the new controls on air emissions will come into effect and 25 of those controls will be the responsibility of local authorities, but two authorities, Northampton and Langbaurgh, have already dismantled their control units. That is a bad omen for the implementation of many of the other White Paper proposals. Those authorities have abandoned control units because of a lack of financial resources.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not believe that any local authority will forgo its statutory responsibilities. I sincerely believe that our proposals for integrated pollution control and the inspectorate that will back that up will have a profound and desirable effect.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I welcome many of the proposals in the Water Act 1989, which gives the National Rivers Authority far greater powers, I urge my right hon. Friend to make far greater use of the "polluter pays" principle so that the pricing policy of companies takes into


account their responsibility towards the environment—a responsibility which will be met through their own financial incentives.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The "polluter pays" principle is widely accepted in environmental policies, but my hon. Friend will be aware that, following the privatisation of the water industry, a £28 billion investment programme has been established which will transform the quality of water in this country.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that his and the Government's credibility on environmental issues will he regarded as sound only when there is full integration between Government economic policy and Government environmental policy? The White Paper promised only that the Government would consider fuel taxation to encourage fuel economy and would consider environmental economic mechanisms to discourage pollution. Will the Tories join the Liberal Democrats in proposing a competitive tax on all forms of environmental pollution in this Budget, the next Budget, some time or never?

Mr. Heseltine: We are not too keen to join the Liberal Democrats, because we aim to stay in government. As the hon. Gentleman must be fully aware, the Government have already set up a standing environment Cabinet committee. We have nominated Ministers from each Government Department to take an interest in such matters. Although the specific questions posed by the hon. Gentleman are a matter for the Chancellor, no one could question the Government's environmental credentials, which are world pace-setting.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the progress on the investment programme for the water industry which is specifically mentioned in the Government's White Paper? Is he satisfied with the progress of that investment programme, given that the industry acknowledges that there has been serious slippage in meeting those targets? Is not that slippage totally unacceptable when water bills have reached record levels and senior management in the water industry have just taken salary increases of up to 30 per cent?

Mr. Heseltine: I keep in close contact with Lord Crickhowell of the National Rivers Authority. We are broadly satisfied with the pace of progress. However, the scheme is a major enhancement in expenditure programmes which is, in significant part, necessary because of the dramatic cuts introduced by the Labour Government in the mid-1970s. It is unrealistic not to understand that to get such a level of expenditure under way takes a significant amount of time if the task of investment is to be done well. I shall be frank in response to the hon. Lady's question—yes, there is a price for high environmental standards. If the hon. Lady and the Labour party think that we can improve standards without spending and investing money, they deceive the country and themselves.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the latest developments in connection with his review programme for the reconstruction of the community charge system.

Mr. Heseltine: The review is continuing to look at a range of possibilities for local government finance, structure and functions. As part of the process, I have recently held a meeting with the local authority associations and visited a number of individual authorities and I and my ministerial colleagues have met various of the Opposition parties to hear their views.

Mr. Dykes: Why have all the best ideas come from Conservative-controlled local authorities and either no ideas or the worst ideas have come from Labour-controlled local authorities?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has been in the House for long enough to know that that is a normal event which we are used to. In fairness to the Liberal party, the Welsh nationalists and the Scottish nationalists, they have clearly thought through their proposals for local government finance and have discussed the subject with us; we have had frank, full and valuable conversations. The gap has arisen characteristically, among Labour Front-Bench spokesmen, who apparently have proposals but have so little confidence in them that they are not prepared to discuss them.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What significance does the Secretary of State attach to the idea that all taxation should relate to ability to pay? Have the Government yet ruled in the possibility of local income tax, which could certainly be implemented in Scotland in the next financial year?

Mr. Heseltine: I have made it clear that we are looking comprehensively at all options. Although much of the argumentation behind the options is familiar and I fully appreciate the position of the Scottish National party, I shall not go further today than to say that all the options have been or are being considered by the Government, who have ruled nothing out.

Mr. Ralph Howell: In view of the commitment made by my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister that nothing will be ruled out when considering changes to, or the repeal of, the community charge, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still practical and possible to repeal the community charge and replace it with 7 per cent. VAT before 1 April 1991, thus saving us from another 12 months of agony?

Mr. Heseltine: I have made it clear that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. With regard to the timing that my hon. Friend suggests, some things are ruled a bit more in than others.

Mr. Nellist: Will the review consider the powers of poll tax officers, such as is illustrated by the case of a 58-year-old lady to whom I spoke in Coventry last night? She has always paid her 20 per cent. poll tax by direct debit from a bank. After two lots of open-heart surgery, she moved last December from income support to invalidity benefit and received a £3 a week rise to £55 a week. She found that the poll tax office in Coventry had the power to phone the Midland bank and instruct it to pay £98 to the poll tax office out of her meagre savings. That is the first time that I have heard of poll tax officers having the power to instruct clearing banks to make such payments. Will the Secretary of State's review rule out such powers?

Mr. Heseltine: I cannot respond in the House to the circumstances of individual cases put by the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot reply in the detail that he expects. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I shall carefully consider the principles involved. The hon. Gentleman does everything that he can to avoid paying the community charge. What sort of example does that set for people whom he expects to pay it?

Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend take my word for it that people in my constituency, which is yoked to two of the worst Labour councils in the south-east, Basildon and Thurrock, are sceptical about a change in the method of collection? They think that whatever we do under the same council structure the amount will still be too high. My constituents want the review to have an opportunity to reduce the role of local councils and put more work out to tender so that we do not need to collect as much money.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. I strongly support her view that the more choice and competition we can introduce to the provision of services, the better value for money we are likely to get.

Mr. Blunkett: I notice that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) questions the Secretary of State on the reconstruction, not the removal of the poll tax. The Secretary of State is now engaged in deliberations. Does he agree with the Audit Commission that people on nil or very low income should be exempted from paying, because of the cost of collection and the unfairness, or with his colleague the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who earlier this month said:
Labour is in great peril if it gives up the principle that everybody should make a contribution to the cost of local government, because that principle is widely accepted."—[Official Report, 19 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 198.]
The two things are contradictory. If the Secretary of State is intent on introducing a floor tax, does not he accept that the only way to fulfil the wishes of the Minister of State is to maintain both a floor tax and the poll tax?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that my hon. Friend the Minister of State makes a vital contribution to the review, as does the Audit Commission.

Litter

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 relating to litter came into force.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The provisions about the fixed penalty scheme and the increase in the maximum fine for littering from £400 to £1,000 came into force on 13 February. The new duty to ensure that land is kept clear of litter and refuse will come into effect on 1 April 1991. I will be placing a full detailed timetable in the Library.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Should not the Government set a good example? Will he consider removing Crown immunity?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we have decided to remove Crown immunity, which means that every Government Department will have to comply

with the litter provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I trust that all Departments will therefore set an excellent example to the rest of the nation.

Mr. Eastham: It is about time that we gave the confectionery industry some guidelines about packaging. Often sweets are covered by two or three pieces of paper which increases unnecessarily the amount of litter that has to be collected. The problem could be greatly reduced.

Mr. Trippier: I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Within the Department we have already set up a working party to deal with waste minimisation, which is precisely the point to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House. Last week I had an opportunity to visit Germany and was very interested in the waste minimisation proposals that are being introduced by the federal Government there. Those proposals will cover the packaging problem. It will be interesting to see how the Germans implement their legislation and I shall be fascinated to see whether it can be replicated here.

Housing

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will next meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation to discuss the aspirations of non-metropolitan district councils in respect of their responsibilities towards housing.

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has regular meetings with the chairman of the Housing Corporation, with whom he discusses a wide range of housing issues.

Mr. Shepherd: When my hon. Friend discusses these matters with the chairman of the Housing Corporation will he place great emphasis on the distribution of the resources of the corporation between metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts? Is he aware, for example, that in the west midlands region in 1989–90 more than 90 per cent. of the corporation's resources went into the west midlands county—say, Staffordshire—leaving the vast area of Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Shropshire bereft of resources? Some district councils are going out of their minds in their efforts to discharge their responsibility to provide housing. Housing associations are lined up and ground is lined up, but the resources are not available.

Mr. Yeo: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. From 1992–93, we shall require the Housing Corporation to meet fully the requirements of the housing needs indicator. I hope that this will be helpful to the local authorities to which my hon. Friend refers. Although, in the current year, the corporation has fallen some way short of its target for new housing in rural areas, it assures me that it will make up the shortfall over the next three years. Against the background of a near-doubling of the resources that we are devoting to the corporation, there will be a substantial increase in the number of new units being provided in rural areas—more than 6,500 over the next three years. In addition, we have given local authorities the chance, in the next financial year, to bid for another £50 million of credit approvals—again, specifically earmarked for low-cost housing in rural areas. The


Government give substantial support to the Rural Housing Trust, whose objective is to extend the coverage of the housing association movement in rural areas.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister understand that if there is a ceasefire in the Gulf—and there should be—and if the squaddies come home, they will fight against homelessness, against cardboard city, against the poll tax and against the ravages of Toryism? That is what frightens the Government. The war should be stopped, so that our people may come home and join us in the general struggle against injustice.

Mr. Yeo: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, although they fall rather wide of the responsibilities of my Department. I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning and I, together with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence, will make certain that the right kind of accommodation is available for everyone who returns from the Gulf.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has received from the general public on the issue of the community charge in 1991.

Mr. Portillo: About 9,000.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that much of the criticism of the poll tax, or community charge, would be better directed at overspending and wasteful councils? Before he makes up his mind about this great reform, will he come to Southend-on-Sea, where, just over a year ago, the Liberal-Labour council imposed a poll tax of £420, causing great hardship to the poor? Then the Conservatives took over, and the poll tax was reduced on two occasions—standing now at £340. If the Minister were to come to Southend, he would realise that most of the complaints about the terrible hardship that is being caused should be directed at councils that waste money irresponsibly, not at the principle itself.

Mr. Portillo: I am tempted by my hon. Friend's invitation to visit Southend. I had the privilege of meeting his local authority not long ago. I was astounded that, having cut the community charge last year, the local

authority had been able to do it again, making it two years in a row. That shows that it was no fluke. The local authority is dedicated to reducing the overspending of the previous Labour-Liberal council. I pay tribute to it and to my hon. Friend for keeping up the pressure.

Rented Housing

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase the availability of low-cost rented accommodation; and if he will make a statement.

Sir George Young: The Government have taken a variety of measures to increase the supply of low-cost rented housing. Public resources through the Housing Corporation for the development of new housing by housing associations will increase from £1·2 billion this year to over £2 billion by 1993–94. Together with associations' new ability to draw in private investment, that will permit an increase in output from 21,000 last year to about 40,000 by 1993–94. Deregulation of the private rented sector, the business expansion scheme, the exceptions planning policy for low-cost housing in rural areas and the estate action programme are also helping to make more properties available for rent.

Mr. Kirkwood: Notwithstanding the increase in housing association and Housing Corporation cash that the Minister has just announced, does he accept that funding does not begin to match the demand and need identified by the Housing Corporation and the housing associations for long-term provision of housing? Will he think again about the possibility of increasing that budget?
Provided that the standards of provision are adequate, will the Minister consider making it easier to give financial incentives to those who have spare rooms to make them available and so bring people off the streets as a transitional stage towards the provision of longer-term accommodation?

Sir George Young: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point, which is also constantly pressed on me by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—the concept of the friendly landlady. However, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer because it involves tax incentives. Of course, I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is brought to his attention.

Points of Order

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you agree that, when we reached Question No. 10, which referred to Langbaurgh, Middlesbrough, Hartlepool, Stockton and North Tyneside, the reason that you were unable to call me to make a point about the extremely high-spending Labour councils was because no Labour Members——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot give an explanation of my discretion in these matters.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would sit down for a minute. I can give no bonus points for the sort of behaviour in which he constantly indulges, but I shall hear him now.

Mr. Banks: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I wish to apologise to you for my outrageous behaviour in challenging your partiality in calling the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on a question about homelessness in Greater London. As you know and I know, the hon. Gentleman is the chair of the London group of Conservative Members of Parliament——

Mr. Speaker: Order. As a matter of fact, I did not know that. However, I do know that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) represents a Greater London seat.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I think that I was on my feet before the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be so, but I have discretion in these matters.

Mr. Dykes: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. Despite all your long years of distinguished service in the Speaker's Chair, were you not deeply shocked by the hysterical display of petulant anger when you called my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey)——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am frequently deeply shocked but I try not to show it.

Mr. Derek Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—I thought that you might like a genuine one for a change. We have discussed before the closure of the side galleries following the demonstration by those opposed to the Gulf war. Now that feeling about the British position in the Gulf is perhaps less emotive among those opposed to it, will you reconsider the decision to close the galleries? That is especially important before Budget day, when there is so much pressure for seating. The officials in the Admission Order Office are helpful to hon. Members, but their hands are tied until the ruling is rescinded.

Mr. Speaker: That matter is constantly under review. The House would expect me to take action to protect hon. Members, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a completely different and important point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has just been announced on Baghdad radio that Iraq is willing to abandon all claims to Kuwait, to discuss reparations and to release all prisoners of war as soon as a ceasefire is arranged. I realise that that is a preliminary announcement, and we are always dubious about what is said, but if that information proves valid, we might want a statement at 7 o'clock or later this evening. Can that be conveyed to the appropriate Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having brought that welcome piece of news. I hope that it turns out to be true. I am sure that what he has said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 15 MARCH

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Tam Dalyell

Mr. Tam Dalyell: For debate on Friday 15 March, I have selected the subject of the ecological consequences of the Gulf war and the actions that are being taken by Her Majesty's Government and members of the coalition to cope with oil slicks, Gulf oil fires, dysentery, typhoid and other related problems in Iraq, and with casualties on both sides. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the old procedure. The hon. Gentleman is empowered to say that.

Mr. Lewis Stevens
Mr. Gerald Howarth

BILLS PRESENTED

AGE OF LEGAL CAPACITY (SCOTLAND)

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, supported by Sir David Steel, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. Brian Wilson, presented a Bill to make provision in the law of Scotland as to the legal capacity of persons under the age of 18 years to enter into transactions, as to the setting aside and ratification by the court of transactions entered into by such persons and as to guardians of persons under the age of 16 years; to make provision in the law of Scotland relating to the time and date at which a person shall be taken to attain a particular age; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 95.]

HARE COURSING

Mr. Harry Cohen, supported by Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Mr. Peter Griffiths, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Steve Norris, Mr. Robin Squire and Mr. Andrew Welsh, presented a Bill to make hare coursing illegal: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Zoo Animal Welfare

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision for the welfare of zoo animals.
I should say at the outset that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with working conditions in the Palace of Westminster.
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 was a major and welcome step forward which has had a significant beneficial impact. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), as well as to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who played an important role in promoting and improving the Bill.
British zoos are not particularly bad by international standards. Anyone who has visited zoos in developing countries will no doubt have seen harrowing scenes of animals in cramped unnatural conditions. I well remember not long ago going to a zoo in China and seeing a lioness in a dark, damp, concrete cell 6 ft by 12 ft being taunted by people throwing cigarette ends at her. In the same zoo I saw a lone panda, supposedly China's national animal, in a completely unsuitable concrete pen without a companion and with no greenery whatever.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: No bamboo shoots?

Mr. Oppenheim: Not one.
By contrast, good British zoos and safari parks make a genuine effort to look after their animals properly. Glasgow zoo is a good example of one that is attempting to take account of the animals' natural habits and instincts and to keep them occupied and stimulated, and I welcome those efforts.
Despite certain improvements as a result of the 1981 Act, major problems remain. They have been highlighted by an admirable organisation named Zoo Check, and by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' 1988 report, which was based on a large survey of British zoos. The problems they revealed relate not only to obvious shortcomings such as inadequate and cramped accommodation. Astonishingly, the RSPCA survey showed that only two zoos were required by their licence to ensure suitable social groupings of the animals that they kept. The RSPCA reported several instances of single representatives of highly social species, which is a very cruel practice.
Many zoos had failed to undertake the improvements required by their licences within the specified period, which shows the serious shortcomings of existing legislation. I will highlight one or two of them. Currently, most inspectors come from within the zoo industry, which is not always a good idea. Also, inspections are made only every four or six years, and they should be made annually. Mandatory standards should be established and enforced by law, and the implementation of inspectors' recommendations should also be mandatory in the granting of licences. Too often in the past, local authorities have ignored recommendations when granting licences.
My final point relates to the role of local authorities as licensing bodies. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement in many respects, because of the conflict of interests. Many local authorities own zoos, or lease land property to zoos—and often they are keen to keep open zoos as a local

attraction, rather than to prioritise the welfare of the animals that the zoos contain. Consequently, they are frequently unwilling to take action where animals are kept in unsuitable conditions.
The Bill's main aim is to encourage amendments to the existing law, but I hope that, in the longer term, more thought will be given to the whole question of zoos. They were originally established to allow research, but that is no longer their prime purpose. Zoological research is often more satisfactorily undertaken in the field. Subsequently, zoos were considered primarily as places of entertainment and perhaps of education.
However, the superb wildlife programmes that are now shown on television make it no longer necessary or desirable to keep animals cooped up in cages just to entertain or educate. One must question the educational value to children of seeing animals cooped up in cages in an artificial environment, in conditions that cause them extreme stress. If we are to use animals for our entertainment, it is incumbent upon us to keep them in humane conditions.
In this day and age, the only real justification for zoos is as centres for the conservation of endangered species. I hope that the Government will consider that argument in relation to London zoo in particular. It has already received large sums of Government money, and is actively lobbying for even more. Such grants should be made conditional on major improvements, with the aim of turning zoos into centres for conservation, which could educate the public about the problems that lead to certain species being endangered. I hope that zoos in this country and throughout the world will develop in that way in future. If they do, they will carve out for themselves a valuable role in conservation and education.
Animals are not machines, but sensitive beings capable of feeling unhappiness. Man is the most powerful species on earth, and we have a duty of care towards weaker animals. If we are to keep animals in zoos, and if we consider ourselves to be a civilised society, that must be done in a way that respects the animals' psychology. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman intend to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Dalyell: Yes. I do not think that the ten-minute Bill procedure is the right way to go about this. I also take exception to a number of the implications in the speech that we have just heard.
For instance, the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) referred to Glasgow zoo. Whatever may have been the case many years ago, Graham Law and others have made enormous advances——

Mr. Oppenheim: I said that.

Mr. Dalyell: The general implication was that there was considerable dissatisfaction. I listened to what the hon. Gentleman was saying. The truth is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has the right to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell: The truth is that many zoos are trying to make great progress. The hon. Gentleman did not name


any that were not. I give the example of Glasgow, which the hon. Gentleman himself mentioned. Many years ago, the bears had only 0·4 hectares of space, and kept strutting up and down. Now, they have 3 hectares. A whole series of challenges has been made for bears at that zoo; it is not true to say that the conditions are cramped. Most zoo owners are very enlightened, and are doing their best to improve matters.
Secondly, I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism of the local authorities. Thirdly, and more important, he attacked the keeping of animals for research purposes. Contrary to his implication, the captive breeding programmes are very important. I pay tribute to those—for instance, Roger Wheater in Edinburgh—who have pioneered the system. We need not legislation but resources if we are to return to the desired system of proper landscaping: the Hagenback system.
Fourthly, if parliamentary progress is to be made, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman persuade some of the Ministers to devote more resources, to, for example, the natural parks system set up by the Scottish Natural Heritage Bill, which some of us are discussing in Committee every Tuesday and Thursday. That is the way to conduct research, and to implement what Markowitz and others have achieved in the field of animal psychology.
If the resources are there, the House should be discussing a number of other matters. We should currently be considering how to save many of the birds and animals that risk extinction because of what has happened in the Gulf—for example, the green turtle, the hawksback turtle and the Socotra cormorant—as well as the coral ecosystems. That is where the resources should go.
Finally, I oppose the Bill on the ground of what the hon. Gentleman said about inspections. If he is to talk of annual inspections, a representative of the Government had better say what resources will be devoted to the appointment of more inspectors, who will be capable of coping with the problems.
Perhaps my deepest objection is that we need not the hon. Gentleman's Bill, but legislation on the importation of birds for the bird trade, which reeks of a cruelty beyond anything in our zoos.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is true.

Mr. Dalyell: I am glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and others, who know a great deal about the subject. I am not a universal expert, but I know rather a lot about zoos. I took some soundings, because I did not know what the hon. Member for Amber Valley was going to say; on the basis of what he has said, especially by implication, I for one oppose his Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Phillip Oppenheim, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. David Sumberg, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Andrew Mackay, Mr. Kenneth Hind, Mr. Lewis Stevens, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Cecil Franks, Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. David Evennett.

ZOO ANIMAL WELFARE

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision for the welfare of zoo animals: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 March and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

Social Security

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House for us also to consider the following motions:
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved.
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations 1991, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: Will that be for the convenience of the House?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Newton: It is just possible that hon. Members may also agree that the main interest of the House and perhaps the main focus of the debate will be on the draft rating order.
However, in line with my duties to the House, I must first refer to the purpose and content of the other orders and regulations, although I do not propose to refer to the order concerned with state scheme premiums which is entirely technical, not to say dense. However, I am prepared to say something about that order if pressed.
The draft contributions re-rating order is, as always, concerned with national insurance contributions which determine people's entitlement to pensions and other important contributory benefits and which are the source of finance for more than half of what is spent each year on social security. A notable feature of the draft re-rating order is that, for the eighth year in succession, we propose no increase in the main rates—the class I rates paid by employed people and their employers.
As the House will already be aware, this time I have been able to propose a reduction in the rates of national insurance contributions payable by employers. I propose to reduce the standard rate from 10·45 per cent. to 10·4 per cent. and, perhaps more important, to reduce the lower rates, which are currently 5 per cent., 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. in respect of employees earning up to £175 a week, to 4·6 per cent., 6·6 per cent. and 8·6 per cent. respectively. Those changes will reduce employers' costs by about £250 million. I remind the House that they are likely to be especially helpful to employers—often smaller employers—whose employees are among the less highly paid, and will go a considerable way towards offsetting any

additional costs that employers meet as a result of changes to statutory sick pay made by the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991.
The House will be aware also that there are boundaries for contribution liability, called the lower earnings limit and the upper earnings limit, and they will change as usual. The LEL applies to employers' and employees' share of contributions, but the UEL applies to the employees' share only. The order does not set those two earnings limits; that is done by a set of regulations to be laid after the benefits uprating order has been approved. However, the LEL, which is linked by law to the nearest pound below the retirement pension rate, will be £52 a week, and the UEL will be £390 a week.
The effect of the increase in the lower earnings limit will be to reduce most employees' contributions by 42p a week, or by 30p if they are in contracted-out employment. The effect of raising the upper earnings limit is that those having earnings of £390 or more a week will pay an extra £3·18 a week or £2·50 if they are contracted out.
A few minutes ago, I mentioned the proposed reductions in the rates of contributions paid by employers. Additionally, as on previous occasions, the re-rating order provides that the earnings limit below which they pay lower contribution rates will be increased. From April, employers' contributions will be 4·6 per cent. in respect of employees earning between the lower earnings limit and £84·99, 6·6 per cent. for those earning between £85 and £129·99, 8·6 per cent. for those earning between £130 and £184·99, and 10·4 per cent. for those earning more than £185 a week.
In 1991–92, class 1 contributions, which are the ordinary contributions that most people make, are expected to yield more than £35 billion. As is the case with contributions made in all classes, that revenue will be apportioned between the national insurance fund and the national health service.
I shall now say a word about self-employed people, who pay national insurance contributions in two portions—the flat-rate class 2 contribution and the profits-related class 4 contribution. We do not propose any change to the class 4 rate, which will remain at 6·3 per cent. in the coming year. The profits limits for class 4 contributions, which determine the level of annual profits on which contributions are payable, will once again be increased to £5,900 and £20,280 respectively. The upper profits limit is exactly 52 times the class 1 upper earnings limit.
We propose also to increase the class 2 contribution by 60p, to £5·15, per week from next April. That class 2 rate is broadly linked to the class I lower earnings rate, and its increase reflects the proposed rise in that limit. The result of all that is that self-employed people with profits at or below the present upper limit of £18·200 will pay about £28·35 less in class 4 contributions per year, and that will largely offset the increase of £31·20 in their class 2 contributions. Those with higher profits will pay up to £102·69 more in class 4 contributions. Self-employed people are expected to contribute nearly £1·4 billion overall in contributions in 1991–92.
Certain categories of people—for example, those who are not gainfully employed or who are receiving contributions credits, such as people who retired before the age of 60—can pay class 3 contributions if they wish. They are voluntary contributions. We propose to increase class 3 contributions by 60p, making them £5·05 per week.
As usual, the Government Actuary's report on the effect of our proposals on the national insurance fund has been laid with the re-rating and uprating orders. It is estimated that the total income received by the national insurance fund will be around £33·5 billion in 1991–92. Total expenditure, including administration, is estimated at £34·5 billion. However, although expenditure is likely to exceed income, the balance is expected to remain comfortably above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary.
The changes in national insurance that I have just described will determine the contributions of the vast majority of people, but I should like to say a word about one interesting corner of the system which is of particular interest, although to only a limited number of hon. Members—the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which deal with the special rate of class 2 contribution that is paid by share fishermen. I notice that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) is pricking up his ears. He is one of the hon. Members whom I had in mind. I refer to the 13,000 people who are jointly engaged in a fishing enterprise and who are paid wholly or in part by a share of the profits from the catch. Unless they are working under a contract of service, they are regarded as self-employed for national insurance purposes.
Unlike self-employed people generally, however, under a long-standing arrangement, share fishermen can receive unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits. They earn their entitlement to these benefits by paying a special, enhanced class 2 contribution. This consists of the standard class 2 contribution paid by the majority of self-employed people, with an additional amount related to the costs of the extra benefits payable to them.
Hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire—will recall that one of the measures contained in the Social Security Act 1990 was the removal from the scope of the national insurance fund of industrial injuries benefits, which are now met from general taxation. Clearly, therefore, it is inappropriate for share fishermen to pay extra in contributions for benefits that are no longer funded from these contributions. From April, we propose that share fishermen should no longer pay this extra amount, although I hasten to reassure the House that this change will have no effect on their rights to benefits.
To make the position clear in financial terms, I should explain that, with additions for both unemployment benefit and industrial injuries benefits, the share fishermen's contribution currently stands at £6·15. By removing the addition for industrial injuries benefits, but adding the normal increase in the standard class 2 contribution, which this year is 60p, the share fishermen's contribution rate from April will be £6·20. This means that, for a very modest increase of 5p a week on their contributions, share fishermen will continue to receive their extra benefits in the same way as before, as well as benefiting from the coverage given by standard class 2 contributions. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire might pop up to say what good news that is and what a generous Government we are.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Hope springs eternal. Although this welcome rationalisation reconciles the longer-term problems faced by share fishermen, they also face more urgent short-term problems, such as the eight-day tie-up period during which they are excluded from unemployment benefit. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at that as a matter of some urgency, to try to bring about some short-term relief in the coming year?

Mr. Newton: From long experience in the House, perhaps I should have known that it is impossible to do good work without somebody seeking to get one to do more. I shall, of course, look at the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I hope that he will understand me when I say that I shall do so without commitment. That matter has the air of a point that somebody has looked at fairly closely several times previously——

Mr. Kirkwood: To no useful effect.

Mr. Newton: As I have said, I can make no commitment—only an expression of good will in the hon. Gentleman's direction.
I turn with some relief, which I suspect is shared by the House, from the rather tedious details of national insurance to the Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order, which represents changes that are part of a wider package of shorty-term sickness provisions for those in employment, other elements of which are contained in what is now the Statutory Sick Pay Act. As the ground was well, not to say exhaustively, trodden during the debates on the Statutory Sick Pay Bill both in this House and in another place, I shall not take the time of the House this afternoon by going over it again in great detail. I simply state briefly and factually that the order increases the lower rate of SSP by the full retail prices index increase of 10·9 per cent. from £39·25 to £43·50 a week and leaves the higher rate unchanged at £52·50 a week.
At the same time, the earnings threshold between the two rates will increase from £125 to £185 per week, thus extending the coverage of the lower rate across the whole range of earnings for which employers pay lower rates of national insurance contributions. Those proposals will reduce public expenditure on SSP by about £100 million in 1991–92. [Interruption.] In view of the faint sounds of muttering from Oldham, I should like to remind the House once more that the majority of employees will see no effect on the total payments that they receive when sick. That is because of the way in which occupational sick pay under employers' schemes interacts with SSP.
To pre-empt one of the points which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will undoubtedly make, not all employees are covered by such schemes, either because they are among the 9 per cent. of employees who work for an employer who does not have an occupational sick pay scheme or because they do not satisfy the qualifying conditions of their employer's scheme. But I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that those who do not satisfy the qualifying conditions, and possibly a significant proportion of the others, will be mainly employees who are modestly paid or who work part-time and will generally be on the lower rate of statutory sick pay. Their entitlement once again will be fully protected in real terms by the increase that is proposed in the order.
Before I finish dealing with SSP, I should refer to the Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations,


which are also in the package before the House. As hon. Members will realise, those regulations are in consequence of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, passed earlier this month. The regulations enable small employers who experience abnormal sickness in their work force to revert to an SSP reimbursement rate of 100 per cent., instead of 80 per cent., after an employee has been sick for a spell of six weeks or more.
I do not intend to go over the background to those provisions today, because they were the main focus of our recent debates on the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991, but I can confirm that, as foreshadowed in that debate, the regulations provide for an employer to be defined as a small employer where his contribution payments in the preceding tax year do not exceed £15,000. Small employer's relief—that is, 100 per cent. recovery—will apply once an employee has been entitled to SSP for six weeks in a period of incapacity for work. The regulations also modify the provisions on the position of new employers.
Before I move on, I want to say a few words about the proposals for statutory maternity pay. As I said in my uprating statement, the considerations which apply to statutory maternity pay are different from those which apply to statutory sick pay. In particular, there is much less occupational cover for maternity than for sickness. So we propose to move away from the link which currently exists between the flat-rate element of statutory maternity pay and statutory sick pay.
Indeed, the main benefits uprating order increases the rate of statutory maternity pay by £25 a week to £44·50 per week, which is a full £1 above the retail prices index increase of 10·9 per cent. In other words, a real, additional £1 is being added. Indeed, a real, additional £1 is also being added to the state maternity allowance, which will go up by £4·90 to £40·60 a week. The effect of that is a real increase in benefit for some 315,000 mothers-to-be. That is a modest improvement but a useful and welcome one, which has been less noted than I should have wished.

Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State should have made it more generous.

Mr. Newton: It is £5 million, if I remember rightly, so it is a significant sum, nevertheless.
I will touch only briefly on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order, which is in line with my statutory duty under the Social Security Act 1986. It requires occupational pensions schemes which are contracted out of the state earnings related pension scheme to give post-award increases in guaranteed minimum pensions earned since the 1988–89 tax year of 3 per cent. from 6 April this year.
On child benefit, as I made clear in my uprating statement and am happy to have another opportunity to make clear today, the benefit is and will remain a strong element of our policies for family support. As the House knows, I decided that the right course of action this year was to give practical recognition to the fact that all families with children face additional costs compared to families with none, by proposing an additional payment of child benefit of £1 a week for every family with children.
That will be paid for the eldest eligible child in each family, and will go to around 7 million claimants, in most cases the mother. The net cost will be over £250 million a year. As the extra fl will go to every family and will indeed

be larger than a retail prices increase would have been in one-parent benefit—which is itself defined as an increase for the eldest eligible child—I decided that, on this occasion, it would not be right to make a separate increase in that benefit as well.
The extra payment for all families with children complements the real terms increases in income-related benefits which we have introduced over the past three years to focus additional help on the less well-off families with children. Families on income support and family credit will also, of course, have their benefits increased From April to compensate them for price increases in the usual way. Taken together with the earlier real increases, it means that spending on income-related benefits for families with children is expected to be worth some £400 million more in real terms in 1991–92 than in 1987–88.
The Draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations are the legislative means by which the extra £1 a week will be implemented. They provide for £1 extra per week to be paid for the only, elder, or eldest child for whom a family is receiving child benefit at any time. For the sake of equity, there are provisions to ensure that every family receives one extra amount of child benefit each week.
Historically, there has always been a link between child benefit and other benefits for children. When child benefit for the first child in a family was increased from £1 to £2·30 in April 1978 by the previous Labour Government, there was a corresponding decrease of £1·30 in the rate of other benefits for that child. We therefore propose to make further regulations to be laid before Parliament in due course to ensure that the general principle, that benefit rates for children should be based on the overall level of child support, continues to apply. We propose that benefits payable under the Social Security Act 1975 in respect of children be adjusted where the child in question is one for whom the increased rate of child benefit is payable.
The draft uprating order provides for an across the board increase from £9·65 to £10·70 in the dependant's additions to contributory benefits. The effect of the proposed overlapping benefit adjustment to which I have just referred will be to reduce the amount of such a benefit by £1 where the increased child benefit is in payment; £1 is, of course, the amount by which child benefit is increased.

Mr. Graham Allen: I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in good health. If the worst came to the worst, and he were to fall under the proverbial bus, can he tell those in receipt of child benefit anything about the reports in The Independent on Sunday of serious splits in his ministerial team, of the think tank and of Mr. David Willetts coming up with other ideas? Can he reassure us that, if he were to leave his present position, child benefit would remain safe?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps have taken the answer to his question as already having been given in my firm reiteration, made to the House and elsewhere on several occasions, that child benefit is and will remain a strong element in our policies for family support. I made that statement on 24 October, as a statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government


collectively; it was not made off the cuff by the Secretary of State for Social Security. That seems to make the position absolutely clear.

Mr. Frank Field: It is possible to accept that the Government now, thank goodness, have no intention of abandoning the child benefit scheme—they want to spend the money within that framework in a different way. Press reports sometimes suggest that a Tory party inquiry is being held, sometimes a departmental one, on the various options. Is it possible for the Secretary of State to tell us whether such inquiries are taking place in the Department, in the Tory party or in both?

Mr. Newton: I do not believe that it is possible for me to answer the hon. Gentleman's question in the way in which it has been phrased, but it is certainly not true that all thinking has ceased on the Conservative Benches about possible further development of the benefit system—I presume that the same is true of the Opposition Benches. I am not able to predict the outcome of regular consideration of what is the right way in which to deal with social security matters.

Mr. Field: I do not expect the Secretary of State to tell us the outcome of reviews, but I asked whether such reviews are taking place and where.

Mr. Newton: In that case, the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, such is the liveliness and vigour of all of us in the Conservative party—I was grateful to note the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about my appearing to be in reasonable health—that we are constantly thinking about social security matters in all sorts of ways, at every level and in a variety of forums.

Mr. Field: That is not a good answer.

Mr. Newton: I think that it is a very good one, and I do not propose to try to come up with something better.
The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1991 provides for an increase in retirement pensions, and in virtually all other benefits that are not income-related, of 10·9 per cent. That is the increase in prices that took place during the year ending September 1990. As for income-related benefits, the draft order provides for a general increase of 8·1 per cent., which is the increase in retail prices, other than housing costs, over the same period. That difference, as is now well understood, reflects the fact that, for people on income support, help with rent is separately available through housing benefit and help with mortgage interest separately within income support itself.
Rather than rehearse all the many benefit rates to which the general increases give rise—they are set out in the order—it would be more helpful, especially in view of the relatively short time that the House has to consider the order, to concentrate on two ways in which its provisions improve on the general pattern that I have outlined.
This year, we are proposing to spend an extra £80 million through a real increase in the basic pensioner premium that is paid to people on income support aged 60 to 74. That increase will directly benefit about 400,000 pensioners on income support and will feed through to housing benefit and community charge benefit. The

premiums for single pensioners in that age group will go up by an extra £1 a week, over and above a straightforward uprating, while couples will receive an extra £1·50 a week. That increase builds upon the improvements we made to the premium structure for other pensioner groups on income support in October 1989, which provided £200 million of extra assistance in its first year.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: I could almost have predicted an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Winnick: Perhaps that is true, as I want to refer to a report in The Independent today, which says that there were 2,347 more deaths, mainly among the elderly, than was expected during the cold spell. The charity Winter Action on Cold Homes puts a great deal of blame for those deaths on inadequate heating, fuel poverty and the like. Although I was pleased that two payments of £6 were made, far too many elderly people are simply financially incapable of keeping their homes warm, and that leads to a great deal of deprivation and, sadly, death. I hope that the Government will take more effective action than they have so far to deal with that problem.

Mr. Newton: I have seen the report in The Independent this morning and the comments that go with it, but I cannot pretend to have had an opportunity in the intervening period to make a detailed analysis of the figures underlying it. I learned from my previous experience in the job now done by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, when there was discussion and controversy on the subject, that this country is not alone in experiencing the problem of higher mortality rates in winter than in summer. It is clear that the causes of that problem, which go well beyond this country, are by no means simple to identify or overcome. Those mortality rates include people who, by no stretch of the imagination, could be described as badly off and may be in comfortable and heated residential institutions. It is difficult to draw firm and clear conclusions from the statistics.
I go along with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) in acknowledging that a range of measures is required. I hope that the cold weather payments recently made will make a contribution. In addition, the Government recently introduced—it was contained in the Social Security Act 1989, although it is not strictly a social security measure—a home energy efficiency scheme, the latest version of a number of schemes designed to improve the way in which the houses of elderly people and others are insulated. The advisory services' "keep warm, keep well" campaign, run by Help the Aged, with Government support, can also make a contribution. There is certainly a problem, towards which a range of measures are directed. This Government, and any other Government, would acknowledge that we constantly need to find new ways to address it.
I do not believe that the evidence suggests that the problem can be solved as simplistically as the hon. Member for Walsall, North suggests—by simply using more money on it. The hon. Gentleman intervened at a point in my speech when it was logical to make his remarks, but the paragraph at the end of which he


intervened made it clear that, during the past 18 months, we have directed additional regular, weekly support—worth almost £300 million—to the very groups about whom he is concerned.
Another significant way in which the order varies from the overall retail price index or "Rossi" uprating pattern to which I referred, is the increase in the income support limits governing the amounts payable to those in residential care and nursing homes, by amounts ranging up to no less than £55 a week for a nursing home in Greater London—at an overall cost of £225 million. I should make it clear that, under a technicality, the £10 increase in the London nursing home supplement requires a separate set of regulations distinct from the uprating order under debate.
As the House knows, the balance of the increased limits is weighted towards nursing homes. All the evidence, including the Price Waterhouse survey of costs that we commissioned, shows that that is where large increases are most needed.
In view of some of the comments made, I should emphasise two points about the residential care home limits. First, the basic residential care home limit has increased faster than inflation during the past five years. Secondly—this is too often overlooked in such discussions—the structure includes a separate and higher limit for residential care homes for the very dependent elderly, whose care is obviously likely to entail higher costs. That limit, which covers well over a third of all elderly people on income support in residential homes, is being increased by £15 a week.
I hope that it is in order to refer to a matter which is not about uprating but which is of considerable interest to many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) who has rightly pressed us on it. It is the lump sum made available to those who suffer severe neural or physical damage as a result of vaccination. Such payments are made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 and were last increased from £10,000 to £20,000 in 1985, when I held the post now occupied by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
I am glad to tell the House that we have decided to increase the amount by a further £10,000 to £30,000, which rather more than restores its value to the 1985 level. The necessary order will be laid shortly. That increase does not represent a changed judgment about the risk of vaccination, but simply our view that it is once again appropriate to increase the payment. I hope that that will be welcome.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome my right hon. Friend's news about the increase. It will be especially welcomed by young people who, through no fault of their own or of their parents, have been damaged by vaccine. The increases are in response to representations that I and other hon. Members have made over the past year. I should like the Minister to look at the rules and regulations under which vaccine damage payments are made. Currently, an 80 per cent. disability has to be proved before any payment can be made. I have urged the Minister in the past to look at this matter, and I hope that he will do so. I thank him for his valuable contribution.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I shall consider the issue that he raises but,

obviously, I cannot make any commitment at this stage. I pay tribute to him and to other hon. Members for the way in which this issue has been pressed. I am glad that we have been able to announce a response.

Mr. Paul Flynn: While we all appreciate the increase, it seems to be just below the increase in earnings for the period and probably in line with inflation. How many vaccine-damaged children will benefit from the change?

Mr. Newton: As with the previous change, this change will apply to new claims made after a certain date, in this case after 15 April. The reasons for doing it in that way were fully explained in 1985, but I can repeat them if hon. Members wish me to do so. Only about four or five vaccine damage awards are made each year. It is a small scheme, and I hope that it is clear to the House that I am not trying to oversell it. However, the matter has been sensibly and rightly raised, and we have responded to it in the same way.
It is customary in such debates for the Secretary of State to conclude by reminding the House of the huge amounts with which we are dealing. The increase in social security expenditure between this year and next, most of it arising from the uprating order, is nearly £5 billion, and it will take the total next year to well over £60 billion. [Interruption.] I wish that Opposition Members would stop muttering.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Instead of trying to take credit for the fact that the budget has increased by £5 billion a year, the Secretary of State should eat a little humble pie by acknowledging that his economic colleagues have completely lost control of inflation, and that that, and that alone, is the cause of the increase.

Mr. Newton: It is absolutely clear that inflation is falling at a very significant rate, and that is welcome to all of us. The hon. Gentleman might have spotted that, although I felt it, as it were, routinely necessary to refer to these macro-economic figures, I was about to move to a rather different way of bringing my speech to an end.
It is possible to take those huge sums and present whatever arguments we may have as to their basis. I prefer to concentrate on what this is all about—the people we are helping. In raising the national insurance retirement pension by £5·10 for a single person, and by £8·15 a week for a couple, we are firmly maintaining our pledge to raise pensions in line with price rises. In providing a real increase in income support for many less well-off pensioners, we are building on what was done 18 months ago for those in this group who are disabled or who are over 75—taking the total of real additional help to nearly £300 million in less than two years.
With the increase in child benefit, we are helping more than 6 million families, complementing the £400 million of real extra help already provided to families who are less well-off, compared with the position that obtained before the social security reforms of 1988. When all that is taken together with legislation that the House passed recently to bring an additional £300 million a year of help to many disabled people, it will be seen that we can take some pride in this order and in the Government's record.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The annual debate on social security uprating is, in effect, a debate on the living standards and prospects of the poorest one third of the nation. On that subject, we have just had a rather modest speech from the Secretary of State. It was a speech full of minor details, but perhaps that is not surprising as, when it comes to protecting the living standards of our poorest citizens, he has a lot to be modest about. However, modesty is not a quality that comes naturally to the present Government. Last July, the then Prime Minister roundly declared:
all people of all incomes have increased their standard of living under this Government."—[Official Report, 24 July 1990; Vol. 177, c. 304.]
Let the Secretary of State say that to the 100,000 claimant households that have not had a penny rise in their benefits since April 1987. Ironically, 24 hours before that declaration by the Prime Minister, the Government published statistics which, for the first time, publicly admitted the opposite.
A Department of Social Security document bearing the sexy title, "Households below average income"—I suppose that only a Government Department could dream up such a title—for which we were grateful, despite its late publication, shows that, between 1979 and 1987, the average income, after housing costs, of the bottom one tenth of the population fell by 5·7 per cent. in real terms, and that the average income of the bottom one fifth of the population fell by 1·1 per cent. in real terms. The 10 million people affected are the subject of today's debate.
Ministers like to say that they have concentrated help on the most needy. I am glad to see that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has woken up now that the Secretary of State has finished and I am speaking. On 30 January 1990, he said:
We have adjusted the system to concentrate help on the poorest elderly and disabled pensioners."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 211.]
I wrote to the Secretary of State and asked for more details of the poorest 1 million people in this group—the most disadvantaged in our society. After four months, the Minister replied, confirming what we had always suspected—that under the present Government the 1 million in the population with the lowest incomes have suffered a fall in their real living standards of no less than 10 to 15 per cent.

Mr. David Nicholson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned comparative modesty between the two Front Benches. He will know that, since 1979, the Government have increased spending on family benefits by 29 per cent. in real terms. When the last Labour Government cut spending on family benefits by 8 per cent., where was the hon. Gentleman and what did he do?

Mr. Meacher: I should certainly like to know where those statistics come from. The hon. Gentleman must know that, during their last term of office, the Government have cut child benefit by more than 25 per cent.
Among the groups that I mentioned—they are the subject of today's debate—one group about which the Government like to claim they are concerned is precisely the group mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, families with children. Indeed, the Minister for Social Security and
Disabled People said in his revealing speech a year ago:
We try to establish those parts of the social security system where the shoe pinches unduly and make adjustments

to it. We have helped families on low incomes, whether in or out of work."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 211.]
On 26 July 1990, the Government published what has really been happening to families on low incomes. I mention that date only because, as hon. Members may remember, it was the day that Parliament rose for the recess. I am sure that my hon. Friends know that there is no more important Hansard to read than the one that is circulated after Parliament has closed for the recess. That is when all the unwelcome information that the Government have been trying to conceal for the past year finally sees the light of day. It is worth reading carefully. It shows that where the shoe pinches unduly—the poorest 10 per cent. of families on low incomes—have not been helped by the Government. According to the Government's figures, those people are 7 per cent. worse off in real terms compared with 1979. That is on the record, and I recommend that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) look at that Hansard.

Mr. Newton: My first point is not my main point, but it needs to be made. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be referring to households on below average income and to the date of publication for certain figures. Those figures were not published on the day that Parliament rose for the recess. I remember that they were published when I was due to appear before the Select Committee on Social Security. We felt that it would be right, if possible, to publish those figures then so that the Select Committee could examine me on them. That must have been before Parliament rose for the summer recess.
I wish to make a more substantive point about the way in which the hon. Gentleman is using the figures. He will acknowledge that he is referring to figures after housing costs, rather than to the total income available to the family. In reckoning their standard of living, most people look at their total income rather than their income after paying their rent or mortgage, although they may need to do that calculation for other purposes.
By concentrating on the figures after housing costs, the hon. Gentleman runs the risk—I put it no higher than that because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to run that risk—of being seriously misleading. I shall give one simple example, which I also gave to the Select Committee last year. If a young couple save £50 a week to put towards a deposit on a house, that £50 will still be in their income after housing costs and they will probably be several deciles up in the tables to which the hon. Gentleman referred. When that couple stop saving £50 a week, but instead start paying £50 towards a mortgage, it becomes a housing cost and the couple drop a decile or two in the tables and are suddenly defined as poor. The only change is that they are putting £50 a week into a mortgage instead of saving £50 a week for a deposit. That shows how absurd some interpretations of statistics can be.

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct on a number of points. First, I was not quoting the "Households below average income" figures; I was quoting Hansard for the last day of the Session, which I think was 26 July, and which was circulated 10 days after. It is correct that the HBAI figures were issued two or three days before, but what the right hon. Gentleman does not add is that they had been sat on by the Government for at least a year. They had been promised the Christmas before, they had been promised in the new year and they


had been promised before Easter. We finally had them in the last week of the Session, when it was not impossible but extremely difficult to make use of them in the House.
Whether taking incomes before or after housing costs is the fairest representation of the state of overall income is a genuine issue, but it is curious to hear the right hon. Gentleman make such a point on behalf of a Government, who have constantly said that we should ignore the cost of mortgages in the retail prices index—[Interruption]. That is exactly what the Government have repeatedly said. They say that the mortgage element should be put on one side and that we should look at incomes minus mortgage payments. I do not think that I need to take any lessons from the right hon. Gentleman about which is the correct way of representing the figures.

Mr. Frank Field: Is not one of the difficulties that the Government face that they have been hoist on their own low income figures? When the figures after housing costs showed that the poorest were doing twice as well as everybody else, the Government wanted to use them, but when they were revised the Government came up with some rather good reasons why we should not use them. Should not all the data carry a Government health warning, since both sides of the Chamber use figures for political reasons rather than because they reflect what is happening to the poor?

Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend, who was Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services at the time, makes a relevant point. The Government statistics at that time were said to show that the poorest 10th—I think that it was the lowest decile—had increased their standard of living twice as fast as the rest of the community. That seemed an incredible claim and the Select Committee and my hon. Friend rightly subjected the Government's statistics to independent assessment by, I think, the Institute of Fiscal Studies. It showed that the figures were bogus. Therefore, we should take into account my hon. Friend's point and the way in which the Government have moved the goal posts by presenting figures calculated on a different basis.
The Government have only released figures for up to 1987. That is just as well for them because 1989 was a bad year, 1990 was a dreadful year and 1991 looks like being a disastrous year, not only for the nation, but above all for those on the lowest incomes. Since 1987, for them—it is mainly for them—unemployment has risen sharply and child benefit has been frozen. It can safely be said that if a quarter of the population were worse off in real terms after eight years of Tory government, as the Government have now admitted, they are even worse off now, after 12 years of Tory government.
We may be told, although the right hon. Gentleman has not yet said so, that all that occurred under the previous regime—the ancien regime. The Conservative party is now the purveyor of the classless society. Frankly, I have never heard such cant. It was the Prime Minister who used that phrase and it was the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State who, five years ago, presided over the legislation that introduced the social fund; that virtually ended free school meals; that abolished entitlement to 90 per cent. of disablement benefit; that extended the penalty for so-called voluntary unemployment from six weeks to six months; that removed all entitlement to benefit for 16 to 17-year-olds which led directly to cardboard city; that

hacked £500 million off housing benefit for pensioners and other poor families, and which, according to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux caused 82 per cent. of social security claimants to be worse off.
All those damaging changes were the direct result of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and they came into effect in 1988—the same year in which the Prime Minister, who was then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and a former Chancellor of the Exchequer handed out £2 billion in tax reliefs to the well-heeled and the rich.
I seem to remember that someone once said that people should be judged not by what they say but by what they do. Far from ushering in a classless society, the Prime Minister has handed down some of the most class-conscious and divisive legislation that Britain has suffered since the war. If the Prime Minister really believed in a classless society, he would not be making short-term gestures such as raising cold weather payments by £1 a week for a few elderly people for just two weeks. He would be restoring heating additions to all pensioners in need. He would be reversing the Tory's break of the pension uprating link with earnings, which has made pensioners a class apart—the only people who are denied the rise in living standards enjoyed by the rest of the community.
If the Prime Minister really believed in a classless society, he would not merely be offering an additional £1 in child benefit for just this year for the eldest child only; he would be reversing the four-year Tory freeze on child benefit for all children. If the Prime Minister really believed in a classless society, he would not merely be talking about opportunity and fairness; he would be abolishing the social fund that traps millions of our people deeper into poverty and debt.

Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the president of Pensioners' Voice, who says that Labour's commitment to pensioners is weak?

Mr. Meacher: I did not see that and it surprises me because we are proposing—I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to include this in my speech—an extra £5 a week for the single pensioner, an extra £8 a week for the married pensioner on top of the normal uprating and, even more important in view of the experience of the past decade, to restore the link with earnings. As a result of that link being broken, pensioners have lost £12 a week if they are single and £20 a week if they are married. Our proposal is not weak—it is a formidable commitment.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whatever criticism Pensioners' Voice may or may not have about our record and commitment, it has only contempt for what the Conservative Government have done and the fact that married pensioners have lost some £23 a week and single pensioners between £13 and £14 a week as a result of the decision taken in 1980? [Interruption.] I do not know what the junior Ministers are muttering about, but I know that many pensioners in Britain are bitterly disappointed that they are way behind pensioners in other European countries and that they are being treated with contempt by this Administration.

Mr. Meacher: Labour also should be judged not by what it says but by what it does. The previous Labour Government increased, over five years, the real value of a


pension by 20 per cent., whereas 12 years of Conservative government—as the Secretary of State implicitly admitted when speaking about prices indexes—produced a real increase in the value of pensions of next to nothing. That is a formidable difference between the two parties, and one of which I am sure pensioners will take account at the next general election.

Mr. David Sumberg: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in January 1987, in the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnock), he voted in favour of free concessionary television licences for pensioners? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is Labour's intention to implement such a measure during its first year in office? If so, how much will it cost the taxpayer?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I cannot see how that question arises from the motions on the Order Paper.

Mr. Meacher: I share your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that, while I ought to answer relevant questions, I am being dragged a long way from the subject of the debate.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has spoken for 19 minutes, but has not mentioned any of the orders once. If he is allowed to do that, the House ought to be permitted to hear his answer to my hon. Friend's question about concessionary television licences.

Mr. Meacher: In that case, I shall certainly continue with my speech.
For all the Prime Minister's soothing rhetoric, it is obvious that he does not believe in a classless society or in a welfare state for the needy. His record shows that he believes in a welfare state for the wealthy. Governments are not judged by little gestures—by a little concession or minor amendment here, a further detail there—they are judged by the changes that they make to overall flows of income and by their operation of the social security and taxation systems. That is the measure by which Governments stand or fall.
In successive Budgets during the past decade, the Government have, according to independent estimates, engineered a rise in the incomes of the richest one tenth of the population of about £6 billion. According to a parliamentary answer that I received a week ago, the Government have also poured £3·75 million into a public subsidy during the past five years for private pensions for the well-off.
On the other side of the balance sheet, according to the Government's own figures, during the past decade, pensioners have had £22 billion taken from them as a result of the break of the earnings link. That puts Conservative Members' comments into perspective. The Government's minuscule improvements are no doubt welcome, but they are insignificant when compared with the financial effect on pensioners of their other measures.
The £22 billion would be enough to give every pensioner a Christmas bonus this year of more than £2,000.

Sir Robert McCrindle: I invite the House to reflect on what happened when there was last a Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman said that he regrets the Government's severing the link between pensions and earnings and linking pensions to prices instead. Is it not the case that, when Labour was in power between 1974 and 1979, it gave an undertaking similar to that which the hon. Gentleman is now offering but, because of the state of the economy, on only three out of a possible five occasions was it possible to honour it?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The relevant consideration is what happened to pensions in overall terms. As I said, pensioners were 20 per cent. better off after five years of Labour government, but they are zilch better off after 12 years of Tory government. If the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) is satisfied with that, I hope that he will give that message to the electorate.

Mr. David Shaw: rose——

Mr. Meacher: No, I must move on.

Mr. Newton: rose——

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has already spoken, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with the line of argument that he has used in the last few minutes. What matters to pensioners ultimately is the totality of the effect on them of Government policies. The combination of the pension uprating and the inflationary, taxation, and slow-growth policies pursued by Labour meant that the standard of living of pensioners rose by only 3 per cent. under a Labour Government, whereas average net incomes have risen by 31 per cent. under our Government.

Mr. Meacher: Those figures have been used repeatedly, but they are fundamentally flawed in at least two respects. The growth in shareholding dividends that they incorporate—which can be considerable at a time of rapid growth—have been averaged out over all pensioners. That is absurd. There are some rich pensioners, and they have it all—but the majority of pensioners are poor, and some are very poor. What matters to the poorest of them all is what the Government have done in respect of the state retirement pension, or the additional pension through SERPS. Under the present Government, there has been no increase at all for the poorest 2 million pensioners. They are the people who really matter, because they do not enjoy the advantage of private pensions or of shareholdings. They are the responsibility of the Government and of our generation, yet they have enjoyed no real increase under the Conservatives. They enjoyed a 20 per cent. increase under the last Labour Government.
Families have had £750 million pounds taken away from them as a result of the four-year freeze on child benefit. As a result of all the changes to national insurance benefits since 1979, claimants have had an additional £1 billion taken away from them by successive cuts in benefits. That was revealed in a written answer given on 6 February in reply to an excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).
Vast changes in income flows are continuing, and are growing year by year. The Government have already timetabled huge additional cuts for the future—most


notably the abolition of the additional pension for invalidity benefit, from which, in time, the Government will save no less than £1 billion per year, according to their own estimates. Staggering as it may seem, the Exchequer will gain more from cuts in benefit from the poorest one third of the nation than from the proceeds of all the Government's privatisations. That is not producing a classless society, but engineering the sharpest class division since the Edwardian era.
This year, there has been a new phenomenon—one that has not occurred even during 11 years of Thatcherism. I refer to the creation of a new army of debtors, dependent on the ultimate safety net of income support, yet forced by punitive Government measures to subsist, in large numbers, below the poverty line. According to the Government's own estimates, nearly 750,000 people on income support will be subject this year to deductions because of the poll tax.
The most recent Government figures that I have seen show that a further 430,000 people on income support have been forced to make social fund repayments averaging £5·25 a week. According to a number of parliamentary answers that I have received over the past two months, a further 250,000 families are repaying electricity and gas arrears averaging about £9 a week, 80,000 are paying back rent arrears, and 45,000 are repaying water charges. In all, more than 1·5 million people—one in seven of all those on income support—are now being forced below the poverty line by compulsory benefit deductions.
Even earlier Tory Governments, in their most repressive phases, never did that. I wonder how many of the Government's grinning supporters realise what it really means. Indeed, I wonder whether a single hon. Gentleman opposite can tell me how much income support is received today by either a single or a married adult. I shall gladly give way to any Conservative Member, or indeed Minister, who can tell me.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman want a gender-free House of Commons?

Mr. Meacher: I certainly do. If my terminology fails to adhere to that excellent principle, I apologise.
I was, however, making a much more important point. I think that it speaks volumes that more than 1·5 million people are in such a position. It is interesting that not one Conservative Member can tell me the current level of income support for a single or a married adult, although a Conservative Government are forcing 1·5 million people to live below the poverty line. Government policy has condemned those people to live on less—sometimes substantially less—than £36·70 a week in the case of single adults over 25, and £57·60 a week in the case of married couples over 18, yet not one Conservative Member can give me the figures.

Mr. Newton: Once again, the hon. Gentleman is using figures in what can only be described as a misleading way. Those figures take no account of the fact that either all or part of their mortgage interest—all of it, if they have been receiving benefit for any length of time—is being paid for those self-same people, amounting in some cases to substantial sums. If they are tenants, they will receive either a rent allowance or a 100 per cent. rent rebate, as long as they are also receiving income support. No one else

uses the income figures in such a misleading way. Income support levels must be seen in the context of the meeting of housing costs—in full, in many cases.

Mr. Meacher: Actually, they should be seen in the context of people being able to survive to pay all the costs of normal daily living. Housing is certainly one of those costs, but there are plenty of others, including food, clothing, transport and everything else that people require to look after themselves. I see that the Secretary of State at least has the grace to be embarrassed by what I have said: the figures are indeed deeply embarrassing. They suggest that 1·5 million people are receiving substantially less than income support. I have said before, and make no apology for doing so again, that one Tory Member—Matthew Parris, who is no longer in the House—who was young and fit tried to live on income support for a week, but was unable to do so even for that long. These people are being forced to live on it for months and years.

Mr. Frank Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the Secretary of State back to the Dispatch Box. Has he noticed that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his stance in less than five minutes? When he was talking about low income statistics, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was important not to use figures that took account of housing costs; he has now told us that it is important to think of income support as the amount remaining after housing costs have been met.

Mr. Newton: rose——

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman has already made his speech. I realise, however, that he should probably be given an opportunity to reply to that point—although it was extraordinarily effective and relevant.

Mr. Newton: It strikes me as the complete opposite of the real position. I complained before that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was concentrating on the figures after housing costs; I am now making exactly the same point—that he is concentrating on the benefit rates after housing costs, regardless of those costs.

Mr. Meacher: s: The central point, from which the right hon. Gentleman cannot escape, is that, for the first time since Beveridge or perhaps a little earlier—I do not go back to the 1930s—people are being forced to live significantly, and sometimes substantially, below the Government's safety-net level. It is almost impossible to live satisfactorily and healthily on income support for a long time, but to force people to live below it is unbelievably punitive.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will not give way again, especially in view of what the hon. Gentleman said to me earlier.
Only the present Government have punished people for being poor. This new army of 1·5 million people is at the bottom of the heap—along with the homeless and those who sleep rough, whose numbers are unprecedented. The cuts in living standards go far wider. In a parliamentary answer that I received about a week ago, the Government admitted that single pensioners are now £12·80 a week worse off, and £20·50 a week worse off than they would have been if they had not broken Labour's earnings link.
The Secretary of State, of course, says that the Government have kept up with prices, and that pensioners are no worse off in real terms. Even that proves untrue when we consider, as we must, pensioners' increased outgoings, notably the poll tax. This year, the average poll tax is likely to rise by about £1·15 a week. Following the implementation of the orders, pensioners will have less disposable income in real terms this year than last. The same will apply to many of the 2 million people who are unemployed—whose numbers may rise to 3 million within a year—and to hundreds of thousands of low-income families who are now £1·30 a week worse off for the first child and £2·30 a week worse off for the subsequent children as a result of the four-year child benefit freeze.
Moreover—the Secretary of State touched on this—the latest evidence shows that thousands of elderly people, and people in residential and nursing homes, will be in even worse straits next year than this year. The most recent independent survey shows that the income support shortfall will rise this year—even after the increases proposed in the uprating orders—to some £25 a week in residential homes and some £52 a week in nursing homes. Evictions of elderly people and closures of homes can therefore be expected to increase. Even more ominous, the survey found that half of all registered homes now refuse to take elderly people who are receiving benefit and cannot afford to top it up from a private source at a rate of up to £52·60 a week. Those people will not receive the care that they need.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Disgraceful.

Mr. Meacher: It is disgraceful. For the first time, I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Meacher: I have abundant evidence to support my comments.
Another group—applicants to the social fund—is, in increasing numbers being faced with a blank order to go without. Last year, three quarters of such people were refused help. One quarter were refused help because their local Department of Social Security office did not have enough cash left. According to the recent devastating National Audit Office report published a fortnight ago, refusal rates are up to 73 per cent. for loans, up to 79 per cent. for grants and up to 51 per cent. for crisis loans.
The Secretary of State said that the social fund allows assistance to be targeted on those most in need. That is Toryspeak for rationing. It is also a lie. Those most in need—those without any money—are the people most likely to be refused help on the ground that they cannot repay the loan. That must surely be the ultimate hypocrisy.
The social fund is an ugly throwback to the Poor Law. It is a state-funded charity under which officers ration patently insufficient money among desperate claimants who have no right to an independent appeal against refusal. I can tell the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that there will not be a classless society, let alone any decency or civilised values of care and compassion, until the social fund and its authors are swept away.
Our social security system is a negation of all that it should be. It does not provide social security; it provides a growing level of insecurity for millions of our people.

Much of it is not administratively efficient, but wasteful. The National Audit Office report found that one third of the social fund's budget is spent on administration. The huge savings made by the computerisation programme are not being used to harmonise or improve the quality of the service. They have already been forfeited to the Treasury in staff cuts.
The priorities of current policy do not reflect need, they reflect dogma. This year, £1 billion is being spent on tax reliefs for personal pensions while the neediest are turned away from the social fund in their thousands. The poorest pensioners and low-income families with children are being made even worse off this year and specific benefits continue to be cut—notably statutory sick pay, the motion about which we will certainly vote against tonight. Britain now has the lowest pensions in Europe in cash terms and as a proportion of average income. The same applies to many other benefits.
After 12 years of Tory rule, poverty is again high on the political agenda as it shames the conscience of the nation. If the Government will not act to restore justice and decency in public life for all our citizens, the Labour party soon will after the general election.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I will be brief, as my colleagues want to challenge the picture of deprivation painted so poignantly during the past 45 minutes by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher).
The hon. Member painted a poignant picture of an army of millions of paupers in the United Kingdom, with thousands of people who are beggared by an uncaring Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman should come to my constituency and witness the outstanding, first-class social services provision provided by a superb committee from county hall, and by first-class social workers.
We have superb social workers in north Devon who care for the poorer elements in our society, of which there are many, because people regard the area as a Mecca. They come to live in Devon, but do not want to work. Instead, they try to live off the taxpayers in Devon.
If the hon. Member for Oldham, West visits my constituency, he will see that the way in which society comports itself, even when it is in difficulty in relation to income, is different from the picture that he painted.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Miss Emma Nicholson: I will give way to someone who is not a cousin, but who perhaps should be.

Mr. David Nicholson: Did my hon. Friend note that the amazing tirade from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was witnessed by a massive audience of only three Labour Back Benchers?

Miss Emma Nicholson: That always seems to happen when Opposition Members believe that they can rant and rave to maximum effect. However, they only do that to empty Opposition Benches. That always happens on Supply days. It is extraordinary that so few Opposition Members turn up.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West realises how much the age profile in this country and in


other western nations is changing. We have a rising age profile. We are all getting older and living longer because of the health and welfare services run by this Government. We are also working longer, because there is not such a strict ceiling on working. We are living to a healthier old age, but we are having fewer children.
I am not making a political point; I am trying to introduce realism into this debate, following the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. As a result of the rising age profile, the growing band of old people must be supported by an ever-shrinking group of younger earning people. We should look most keenly at those people in terms of income. I have a large number of pensioners in my constituency, and there is a rising age profile in Devon. In fact, in that respect, we are in advance of the rest of the country. However, as we grow older, we will all need to be supported by younger people who are earning, and that proportion of people is smaller than it has ever been.
We should not think that pensioners today have paid for the totality of the health and welfare provision that they are receiving after retirement. They made the modest contributions that the state sought from them at the time. However, pensioners are now dipping into state benefits in a very big way, because so much more is available in terms of social benefits, and particularly in terms of health care, and the younger people are paying for that.

Mr. David Shaw: In the picture that my hon. Friend paints, does she agree that, with the expanding number of pensioners and a smaller group of young people supporting them, we would expect, with limited resources, to find falling living standards for pensioners? However, under this Government, the reverse is the case. More pensioners than ever before own consumer goods such as televisions, telephones and cookers. Under this Government, the total income of pensioners has increased to record levels.

Miss Nicholson: I agree. I have a note which tells me that, on average, between 1979 and 1987, pensioners' net incomes in total grew by 32 per cent. above inflation, which is more than five times faster than they grew under Labour, when there were fewer pensioners.
It is important to strike a fair balance in society between pressure on younger earners and the proper welfare and health benefits that we offer the older recipients of those younger people's earnings. It is important to recognise that and not continually to ask unrealistically for full benefits across the spectrum of pensioners.
More and more of us have second pensions. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly says, more and more people have a much wealthier life style than the word "pensioner" implies. According to the hon. Gentleman, when we think of pensioners, we might think of someone who is acutely poor. Yes, there are people who are pensioners and who are in poverty, and we must consider them even more rigorously than we have managed so far.
Most pensioners are far better off than pensioners have ever been. They should be well off, and they should be able to have holidays in Florida, colour televisions, two cars, and a longer, healthier and wealthier life. Let us not run away with the idea, however, that that is every pensioner in the United Kingdom—it most certainly is not. My right hon. Friend has struck a fair balance, which is difficult to find, between pressure on younger earners and benefits for older pensioners.
The hon. Gentleman remarked that the Government are not judged by little concessions. I agree—but nor were the previous Labour Government. However, my colleagues and I judge the current Labour Opposition by the proposed concessions that they disdainfully offer to the most needy group in our society, which must be those who are disabled, either mentally or physically. I am appalled that disabled people do not feature at all in Labour's priority social security pledges. They are just not there. They are an invisible element of society.
Two weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the Opposition spokesman on such matters, said that all promises to disabled people were contingent upon the capabilities of the economy. If disabled people are contingent upon the capabilities of the economy, and if the Labour party is in charge of the economy, there will be nothing for them.

Mr. Flynn: Having studied the regulations with some care, I know that the only way in which they are related to the disabled concerns the changes in the statutory sick pay legislation. The result will be that it is much more difficult for disabled people to get jobs.

Miss Nicholson: I refer to the excellent changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has offered for disabled people. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is on the Front Bench. Far from being uncaring and insensitive, my right hon. Friend treats the disabled on an equal basis, without the patronage that we frequently see in the Opposition.
I am delighted to note the increase in mobility allowance, for example. That is no minor concession. The Government have increased the mobility allowance in real terms by 550 per cent. since 1978–79. The number of recipients has increased six times—it is well over 0·5 million and it is approaching 0·75 million. Also, £4 million of new money has been allocated to include the deaf-blind, and double amputees will be included from April 1991, with a new grant of £1 million to Motability to convert cars.
Those are not concessions; they are ways of providing independence of thought, mobility, and accessibility to the disabled. That is what counts. They are a huge group of people. By any account, they are people in need. They genuinely cannot help themselves. They are very unlike the family in my constituency of whom I was reminded when we heard from Opposition Members about all the beggars in the United Kingdom. Indeed, three generations of one family—the grandfather and grandmother, father and mother, and now the children—are now living off the state. Not once has any member of that entire family done a job. They are beggars par excellence. Would hon. Members give more to such a family?
It is acutely important that we give independence of thought, life and ability to work to the disabled. I am therefore very excited that we have now given far more money to help people to go to work if they are disabled. That is an important point, because the number of disabled people is rising. The Government instituted the first study of how many disabled people there are in the United Kingdom and of what their disabilities are. Also, there is a consultation paper, and we on the Select Committee on Employment did a special study and recently published our findings. The Government have


proved their credentials time and time again to that most needy group in society. It is enormously important for employment and employment prospects for the disabled that matters such as the mobility allowance are taken into account and uprated as they have been.
I strenuously welcomed the establishment of the independent living fund. I am delighted that its funding for 1991–92 has almost doubled compared with that of the current financial year. The fund has the flexibility which is the hallmark of the Government's treatment not only of the disabled but of those on lower incomes. Provision can be tailored finely to meet individual needs. Treatment is sensitive, and people are interviewed in their own homes.
We now see the real divide between the Government and the Opposition. The blanket coverage that the Opposition desire and constantly demand for everyone in the United Kingdom whom they define in a patriarchal manner as in need is 1 million light years away from the truly thoughtful, sensitive, intelligent and accurate pinpointing of need by the Conservative Government. I believe that I have made my case in talking about what the Government have done for the disabled in this uprating, and I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Frank Field: Unlike the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), I shall speak briefly, because, if the House will forgive me, I have a meeting at 5.30 pm. Also, unlike the hon. Lady, I have two points to make, and they are about the orders. Before the hon. Lady makes too much of the independent living fund, I bring her bad news. I share her views about the fund, but it is the Government's intention to chop the scheme when community care is introduced. If she wants to conduct a little campaign, many Opposition Members would join her.
First, I refer to fees for residential care. Over the past 10 years we have witnessed a massive change from hospital care for our very elderly citizens to care in private residential nursing homes. That would not have mattered if the costs were not borne by some families. Many of my constituents not only fought through two world wars but, unlike the beggar family whom the hon. Lady frequently mentioned, worked every year that they could work, paid their contributions and expected that, at the end of their working lives, they would be looked after—if need be, in hospital.
Now, in all our constituencies, some homes refuse access to constituents on benefits. The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People may have seen the citizens advice bureau report which shows that, in some areas, no homes are taking constituents who are on income support. We have changed from a situation in which our older citizens could have expected care in hospital—I am not saying that that was a desirable aim, but there were no bills—to one in which people should be cared for in residential homes, and we are now finding that an increasing number are refused entry because they cannot pay.
Also, an increasing group of constituents—pensioners—are being asked to pay a contribution to their parents' fees in nursing homes or residential homes. As the Minister knows, some of his hon. Friends can give him examples of contributions of about £25 per week being made to meet

their parents' fees from the children's pensions. We shall shortly reach the stage where some of our constituents will face eviction. I know that the Government hope that, before that stage is reached, they will have managed to hand over that entire responsibility to the local authorities—although some of us may use the word "dumped". However, it is not a good enough policy for the Government to hope that time will be on their side and that that responsibility will not be theirs, but one for the local authorities to accept.
I hope that, with the help of the careful information that he will have been given by his hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, the Minister will to some extent share with the House his thoughts on this matter. We may be faced with evictions, and we should debate this issue now, rather than wait until it is raised in an emergency debate once evictions occur.
I am grateful for the increases that the orders make. They are necessary and go some of the way, although not the whole way, that we have been seeking.
In the single minute left to me, I shall concentrate on the second issue that I wish to raise, child benefit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said, we now have a new regime. The upratings relate to the old regime. I do not want in any way to detract from the credit that must go to the Government team for getting through this botched measure, because, although it is indeed botched, that is not its importance. What is important is that, when getting the increase through, the old regime was nailed to a commitment to continue child benefit. All hon. Members are grateful to the Treasury Bench for achieving that.
However, there are now some difficulties with the child benefit scheme, about which I asked a serious question, but did not receive a serious answer. Both the Tory party and the Government are debating the future shape of the scheme. It is right that there should be such a debate in those two organisations, but it should be more open. Between 7 million and 8 million mothers draw child benefit every week. I do not think that the Government should conduct a review about the future shape of the child benefit scheme, guaranteeing that child benefit should remain, but wanting to debate the way in which the money is spent, in private, without including mothers or some of their representatives who are among my hon. Friends——

Mr. Peter Bottomley: And among my hon. Friends.

Mr. Field: Yes, and among Conservative Members.
In his reply, perhaps the Minister could give us some idea about the way in which the Government see the future shape of the child benefit scheme. We do not want the old patter, which states that it will be there for ever. We are grateful for that, and we know that we are in a new situation. We want to take the debate further. As a result of the Minister being open and honest with us, we might have a really good debate in the country as a whole about what mothers would like the future shape of child benefit to be, instead of about what a few Ministers or Members of Parliament would like.
I said that I would be brief, and I have already taken two minutes longer than I set myself, but I wanted to raise not only the issue of the future shape of child benefit but also, despite the Government's brave talk about how much more money is being allocated to cover the costs of


residential care, the real problems of residential care provision, to which we shall have to face up before frail and elderly people are evicted on to the streets.

Sir Anthony Durant: My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said that the Opposition's proposals do not mention disability. I must correct my hon. Friend and advise her that the Opposition document refers to a scheme for a new disability benefit. However, what the Opposition have not told anybody is how much it would cost or how it would be introduced. We do not know how the Opposition's proposals will work and we have not been given any costings. Nevertheless, as disability benefit is mentioned in one of the Labour party's documents, I must correct my hon. Friend.
The Government's record on pensions is not bad at all. Pensioners' total incomes are up by 32 per cent., on average—and it is total income that matters to pensioners, not the amount of state pension, which is a different issue altogether.
There are three types of pensioner and the differences between them are growing daily. The first group comprises the 50 per cent. of all pensioners who now have a second pension. Indeed, more than 70 per cent. of people currently retiring now have second pensions, many of which are substantial. Those people have quite a good life. On top of that, the Government have legislated to ensure that private pensions should be automatically increased by 3 per cent. per year to take account of the inflationary spiral. That, too, will help pensioners tremendously. Hon. Members of all parties have wished to ensure that people of pensionable age are well provided for.
The second group of pensioners comprises those who have low incomes and few resources but who live in a property that they own. Very often, those pensioners do not know how to get out of that property or what to do about it as it becomes run down. The Government should have taken more seriously what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) proposed to try to enable those pensioners to use some of the money tied up in their houses to do up the property and obtain some tax relief while so doing. They may wish to sell the property, or they may wish to continue living there, but in better conditions. That group of pensioners certainly exists in my constituency.
The third group of pensioners comprises the small and declining group who do not have a second pension and who depend solely on the state pension and other state benefits. They are the poor group in our society, and I accept that they exist. Although they are a diminishing number, they are getting more resentful. Many of them live in old people's homes, where people with second pensions may also be living, but rather more comfortably. As the state-dependent group does not have the same amount of money, pensioners in that group feel more aggrieved.
That is why I strongly support the Government's move to put money in that direction. The Government have started to do that, and the uprating proposes a further £78 million to increase the benefits for those on the lowest incomes. The right way to tackle pensions is to acknowledge that it is the total income which matters, not the basic pension.
The Labour party has promised an extra £5 per week for single pensioners, but it has not mentioned uprating the whole thing to put back the money that Opposition Members keep saying that pensioners have lost. They are careful not to promise that, because it would result in enormous bills, which they do not want. The Labour party has said that it will link the basic state pension to prices and incomes, as used to happen, but I wonder whether it will actually do that if it ever comes into office. Its promises on pensions do not always live up to expectations.
As I have said, we have three groups of pensioners. There are those now benefiting from a second pension, who are doing extremely well and are very comfortable. There are those who have problems with their houses, many of whom have low incomes and only a small amount of capital. Then there is the smaller group, which is declining all the time, which comprises those who are dependent on the basic state pension and other benefits. That is the group that we must assist and on which we must concentrate. The Government have started to do that, by providing a further £78 million today.
The Labour party always talks about looking after the poor and those on low incomes, but what really matters to pensioners is inflation and what always happens with a Labour Government—it will happen again if the Labour party takes office—is that inflation takes off. Inflation averaged 16 per cent. when Labour was last in office, which meant that pensions diminished in value. Pensioners would be unwise to think that they would get a better long-term deal from the Labour party. What it says sounds attractive and very nice, but the reality of the Labour party's last period in office was that inflation increased and pensions decreased. The present Government have a good record. I support what they are doing on pensions, and I am proud to sit on this side of the House and to be a member of the Conservative party.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant). I understand and sympathise with the point that he made when he identified a group of poorest pensioners, which he described as small and diminishing. Although it may be a diminishing group, it is certainly not small. We should not make light—I appreciate that he did not seek to do so—of the problems that they face. What worries me more than anything else in the Government's policy is that they are not taking any steps to address the diminishing value of the state pension in relation to the income available to the rest of the earning community. I accept that it is a difficult matter which could involve large sums of money.
Irrespective of whether one believes that universal increases in benefits should be available to all, between now and the beginning of the next century the Government—whatever their colour—will have to address the fact that, year in and year out, the group of pensioners to whom the hon. Member for Reading, West referred is losing out in relation to the community fortunate enough to be in work. The hon. Gentleman said that the £78 million was welcome, and indeed it is, so far as it goes, but it does not begin to deal with the problem. This is not just a problem for the coming year, to which the orders relate, but one that pensioners have experienced for the past five years, and it will continue for the next 15, 20 or


25 years until all pensioners have second pensions. Everyone recognises that, when my generation comes to retire, people will have occupational pensions and second pensions, will own their own homes, and so on. There is indeed an urgent problem, but the hon. Gentleman is not right to say that the Government are addressing it adequately.
I wish to ask a few questions in the context of the background against which the orders are being introduced. I am worried by some of the admittedly anecdotal evidence from my casework and other sources that the problem of indebtedness is getting out of hand. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) rightly mentioned debt, and the consequences of financial deregulation have had far-reaching effects throughout the economy in terms of monetary policy, banking and so on. One of the implications which is only now coming home to me fully is that people in dire financial circumstances can get hold of enormous amounts of credit without any security. Week in and week out, I see more and more evidence that that is exactly what is happening.
Even in my constituency, rent arrears are reaching worrying proportions. Poll tax arrears are also becoming extremely worrying. The House should remember that Scotland is a year ahead of the rest of the country. Mortgage repossessions throughout the country are further evidence of the debt problem. Fuel costs and water charges are exacerbating the debt problem. Welcome though the increases in the orders may be so far as they go, evidence is coming through that there is a real problem out there for a large section of the community and it has not been addressed by the Government.
I have dealt substantially with the points about pensioners made by the hon. Member for Reading, West. I trust that the Government will not take the problems of pensioners lightly. The Government gave pensioners the Lawson bonus 18 months or two years ago. A one-off payment of £2·50 was made to certain elderly pensioners. I am not necessarily in favour of such piecemeal payments because the problems are more urgent and need a more strategic long-term approach and to be dealt with adequately. However, I hope that one-off payments are not off the agenda as an immediate way to bring some urgent relief to a section of our retired population.
As the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, there is a debate in the Conservative party and in the Government about child benefit. That is of fundamental importance. It is happening in my party, too. In the approach to a general election, parties reconsider their policies. I detect from the tone of the debate today that the general election is not far away because of the manner in which manifestos and statistics were traded across the Floor of the House. Luckily, most of the political ammunition goes above my head, so I propose to keep my head down for as long as I can. The debate on the future of child benefit is crucial. Some 7 million mothers receive it and £250 million is paid out. It is a major plank in any Government's policy.
If any fundamental changes are to be made, they should be debated in the open, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead said. Also, any changes that are to be made must be expressly included in party manifestos. In the recent past it has worried me that some of the social

security changes that we have witnessed were virtually not discussed during the general election campaign. That happened during the time of the present Administration, so my objection is targeted exclusively at the Conservative Government. My plea is that if there are to be changes in child benefit, they should be discussed openly beforehand and included explicitly in the election manifestos of all major political parties.
I have a series of short questions about the detail of some of the orders. I may have missed them, but I have not seen any published figures for the level of the social fund budget for the next financial year. I do not know when that will appear in the annual cycle of uprating statements, public expenditure announcements, White Papers, and so on. If the figure has not yet been published, I hope that the Government will do so shortly. Certainly, the grants and loans budget, even if it is only uprated in line with inflation, should be in the region of £230 million. My experience—I am sure that it is not unique—is that even that will not be enough to meet the demand. Certainly it is not enough to meet demand for community care grants and to move towards implementing the community care system of finance. The amounts paid in grants must be watched carefully during the period of these orders. I hope that consideration is being given to increasing significantly the community care grants within the social fund.
I cannot possibly make a speech on the uprating orders in relation to the social fund without saying a word about severe weather payments. We have been up hill and down dale since the beginning of the year on this. I understand perfectly that it is not an easy matter to deal with, and the Minister of State is on record as saying that a review is to be undertaken. I hope that the review will be undertaken quickly, because the experience during the recent unusually cold snap was not happy. Statistical evidence is beginning to filter through from reports that large numbers of people in Britain have suffered as a result of the cold weather this year and that that was not an accident. That needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
We may see substantial, indeed swingeing, increases in the level of the poll tax in the near future. I do not want to get into a battle about who is responsible——

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to his next point, I remind him that I am committed to reviewing the cold weather payments. He said that many people had suffered. We deemed the whole country as qualifying to trigger the cold weather payment during the period of the most excessive cold, and we made the necessary payments. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would give me as much evidence as he has to assist my review. I want to listen to the constituency experiences of all hon. Members. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have any evidence that he has, I will take it into account.

Mr. Kirkwood: I take the spirit of that intervention as helpful. I was referring to the statistical evidence that our mortality rates during the winter months are worse than in other countries. I accept that the whole country was entitled to cold weather payment. That was welcome, but there was some confusion about the way in which the payment was introduced.
With regard to increases in the community charge, the House will know that in 1988–89 the Government compensated people on benefit for having to pay 20 per cent. of their community charge or poll tax. Substantial increases in poll tax are in the pipeline in Scotland—I do not know about other parts of the country—far in excess of any compensation that the Government ever envisaged. The Government decided to increase benefits by about £1·30 per week to compensate for the 20 per cent. payment. That will have to be reassessed in view of the current level of increases in community charge that people face, especially as water charges are not rebateable at all.
In Scotland, water rate charges have certainly been spiralling. Even with the recent relief scheme for the community charge, benefit increases do not compensate for the basic increases that have to be paid. If the Government could identify the level of compensation within income support that is earmarked to address the extra amounts that poll tax payers and water charge payers have to meet, that would help. The Government may not have realised that poll tax and water charges would spiral.
The Audit Commission report said that one of the most cost-effective things that the Government could do would be to sweep away the 80 per cent. enforced ceiling on rebates, because the net benefit annually to the average person paying a 20 per cent. poll tax contribution is £6, while the net collection cost is £15. It would save money if the Government did away with the 20 per cent. enforced contribution.
I support everything that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said about residential charges. The Price Waterhouse report suggested that Scotland was the second most expensive area outside London for ordinary residential charges; I am not talking about charges in nursing homes or specialist homes. The increase of £5 in residential home fees is not enough. I have evidence of friends, neighbours and family having to contribute in order to meet residential home charges.
I hope that the Government will do something about national insurance benefits for fishermen. I was given the opportunity to raise the issue by the Secretary of State's announcement about a change in class 2 payments. I welcome that, because it has been a bone of contention in the recent past for fishermen. The change in the weekly earnings rule, coupled with the new lower earnings limit, puts fishermen at a disadvantage in terms of unemployment benefit, particularly if half the eight day tie-up is in one week and the other half in the second week. Fishermen can earn enough in the working days of both weeks to take them out of benefit. That is an unfair consequence of the recent benefit changes, and I hope that the Government will review it.
In relation to non-dependant deductions on applicable amounts for housing benefit, can someone tell me why there have never been stiff increases? According to my arithmetic, the increase is 25 per cent. The sums were done by me, so they may be suspect. So far as I can see, however, the non-dependant deductions at the higher level have gone up from £10·85 to £13·50—a 25 per cent. increase. Even at the lower level there is a 25 per cent. increase—from £4·55 to £5·70. I do not understand that, and I would welcome clarification.
I have come across the case of two 19-year-old non-dependants with someone who was claiming housing benefit. I do not know what average local authority rents

are in other parts of the country, but £27 per week is the about average in my area. If two non-dependant 19-year-olds both get assessed at £13·50, it means that the householder will be deprived of all housing benefit and will have to meet the full rent. If the non-dependants happen to be unemployed, that produces further financial and domestic problems. I do not understand why there should be a 25 per cent. hike when there are much lower increases in other areas. Is there a different way of calculating the non-dependant deductions? If so, I am unaware of it. I should like clarification.
I do not think that the Government's announcement and these upratings do anything other than the Government are statutorily obliged to do. There may have been small increases and insofar as there have been increases, I welcome them, but we need something more if the Government are to show that they recognise the stark financial reality faced by many poor pensioners and families.

Mr. John Bowis: I am pleased to support my right hon. Friend's proposals in the package of upratings of benefits. It is yet another step forward by the Government in looking after people who need our support. I had hoped that the debate would have been a serious discussion, with observations from both sides of the House on how to improve benefits still further, bring in new schemes, enhance existing ones and so on. Although I exempt the hon. Members for Roxborough and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who spoke briefly, I cannot exempt the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) from the charge of not really being interested in the welfare of the people we are seeking to help. He was much more interested in trying to make party political points in what he presumably sees as the run-up to a general election in the not too distant future.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was amazingly disappointing. I can only imagine that he looked at the proposals before him, realised that his party when in power had not produced such ideas, and tried to camouflage the fact that it had come up with nothing in the past and had no credible policies for the future. When one meets people who are in need or those who look after them, one hears of great respect for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State who is responsible for people with disability. One does not hear much about the hon. Member for Oldham, West; having heard him today, we understand why.
The Government cannot solve overnight the problems of all the people in need. They have never claimed to do so, but when they perceive a problem and understand it, they bring forward solutions. Under the Conservative Government, we have had a remarkable and sustained improvement in the living standards of people in the groups about which we have been talking.
One has only to consider the overall position of pensioners. Of course one can find individual pensioners who have not done as well as others, but the broad band of pensioners have been much better off under the Government, partly because of the improvement in the economy, partly because of the Government's ability to


get inflation under control and partly because of the benefits in cash and in kind that older people have received from the Government.
Pensioners are better off to the tune of over 30 per cent. in real terms since the Government came into power. That is the result of a combination of factors. Pensioners' income from savings has gone up phenomenally because of high interest rates. Occasionally, pensioners slightly regret a tumble in interest rates. Nevertheless, low inflation and sound investments mean that pensioners have done better from their savings. They have also done considerably better from occupational pensions.
Is it possible to tabulate comparisons with our friends and neighbours in the European Community? One often hears misleading statements about how we compare with other countries. In any given figures, the comparison is often of like with unlike. Perhaps the spouse is not covered by a non-contributory pension in the other country, whereas that spouse is covered here. Perhaps the comparison does not take account of benefits in kind from local or national Government. It would be helpful to have real comparisons instead of occasionally misleading statistical ones.
I am always ready to press my right hon. Friends to go further on that category of pensioner who is just above benefit level and tends to miss out. I do so for good reason, because I spoke about that in my maiden speech. Such pensioners do not get the basic benefit, and, on top of that, they miss out on consequential benefits. I am especially pleased that, this year, the Government have introduced an additional benefit for those pensioners on low income who receive enough from that income to be judged above the benefit level. I am sure that the extra £1 a week will help such pensioners, but I urge my right hon. Friends to go further.
It is good to note that the problems associated with child benefit are being solved. I refer to that tentatively as I remember the days when our late colleague, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, tabled an amendment to Government policy to ensure that we did not forget the aims behind child benefit—to help children judged to be in need, especially those who may not be caught by other benefits. I supported the change advocated by Sir Brandon, and I am pleased to note that the Government have now found it possible to increase the benefit for the first child. I hope that they will continue to study how further improvements could be made—for example, benefits for children under five. Certainly there are merits in that.
I am conscious of the need to consider other ways in which to improve the income of families with children. The measures taken to encourage fathers who have deserted their families to make a contribution is welcome.
I am pleased to note the proposals on nursing and residential homes. The Price Waterhouse factor has, I am sure, led to the additional support for nursing homes in the uprating. The extra £45 per week, together with the London supplement, is welcome. I am also pleased to note the emphasis given to centres geared to people with alcohol and drug-related problems. I pressed for such improvements some months ago for the Davies centre, which is part of the Turning Point group. That centre helps

people who have come out of detoxification units to go back into the community and without such support those people would find that difficult.
The Government should consider, however, voluntary hospices and the contributions that they invite, but do not demand, from their patients. Department of Social Security offices have disallowed those contributions to be taken as supplements to income support. I know the arguments about that, but that is a hard ruling, as it requires the voluntary hospice movement to make a charge when it has not done so previously. That ruling has affected people with a short lifespan. Many hospices are reluctant to make that charge, so they are losing out.
The House has a particular duty to look after people with disabilities. I welcome the various measures that have already been introduced, but it is important to continue to consider the various problems associated with living and coping with disability, mobility and the ability to work. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for creating the independent living fund and I hope that, whatever the future may bring, that scheme, or something like it, will continue. I especially welcome the fact that that fund has been doubled this year. The improvements in invalidity care allowance, motability and mobility allowances are also welcome.
People with disabilities are always close to our hearts when we consider policy. We have reached the stage where we no longer lock away people with disabilities; rather, we encourage them and enable them to come into the community. Children with disabilities are no longer automatically sent to special schools or colleges—we have enabled them to join mainstream schools and colleges. People with disabilities now work in shops, offices, factories and even in this House. Those people no longer work in enclosed workshops in residential homes. We have enabled people to get to work under their own steam so that they do not have to wait to be wheeled out from their homes. We have enabled people to nurture hopes and ambitions to achieve things with their lives. The carers allowance also means that we look after those who look after people with disabilities.
If we accept that there is nothing that people with disabilities cannot achieve if the House, Government and nation so enable as a result of various measures, such as the allowances we are discussing today, we shall do right by them and by all the others for whom we have a duty of care.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport-West): Sir Thomas Beecham used to refer to the encores that he gave at the end of his concerts as "musical lollipops". They were always pieces of music that were light and attractive, but there was no great substance to them. Since the new Prime Minister took over, we have seen the advent of political lollipops. At various Question Times, the Prime Minister—the Secretary of State for Social Security did the same today—has contrived to award such a lollipop to the waiting, admiring population. Those lollipops have a mammouth publicity value, but are protozoan in terms of the money they represent.
Today the Secretary of State announced an incease of £10,000, equivalent to a 50 per cent. increase, in the award to the parents of vaccine-damaged children. That money will go to about five families a year, so the amount


awarded is microscopic in terms of the available budget. Those families have suffered a particularly harrowing experience. Part of the grief felt by the parents for a dead child is guilt. That feeling is especially harrowing in the case of vaccine-damaged children, because the parents took a deliberate decision—with no blame to themselves—that resulted in that damage.
Everyone will welcome the award to those parents, but we are entitled to display some cynicism about it. The uprating of that award is below the level of earnings at which it should have been set—it is possibly above the level of inflation—and it is significant only because it applies to a small number of children. In other cases, tens of thousands, even millions, of children are involved, but there has been no such generosity or uprating.
One of the most important changes has been that to child benefit—rightly described as a "botch-up". I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that it is good to see the log-jam broken, and that that benefit will no longer be allowed to wither on the vine. The £1 increase for the first child—it is not in the uprating order, but in separate regulations—is slightly more than the going rate of benefit. For the first child, that extra £1 is more than the 10·9 per cent. allowed for inflation for a one-child family, but the increase is less than that 10·9 per cent. for a two-child family—10·9 per cent. of £14·50 is £1·58. Those families are losing when one takes into account the inflation rate. The larger the family, the greater the shortfall. A four-child family would need £3·16 to compensate for inflation. but they shall receive only £1.
All lone parents not getting means-tested benefits will lose, including those with only one child. A one-parent family with one child now gets £7·25 plus £5·60 one-parent benefit, which is not being increased—a total of £12·85. The uprating on that amount would have been £1·40, and lone parents will only receive an extra £1. Therefore, a one-parent family with two children would need an extra £2·19 to compensate for inflation, but will receive just £1.
The reduction in the child dependency allowance increases by £1 per week per family to deprive them of the extra £1 benefit. There will not be four or five such payments a year, but 192,000. That is not included in the uprating order, but will be achieved subsequently by regulation. However, the order covers the partner's earning limits, above which the child dependency increases cease to be payable. They are to be increased in line with prices, when they should obviously be increased in line with earnings. They were introduced in 1984, when the limit was set at £80 for the first child, plus £10 for each subsequent child. Since then, average earnings have risen by 70 per cent., so the limit should now be £136, plus £17 for each additional child. Instead, the new limit will be £110, plus £14—a significant cut.
The £1,000 widow's payment remains the same, but there are not four or five widows in the country, but tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of widows who regularly claim benefit, which has been frozen for the third year running. It has been frozen for nearly six years since it was announced in June 1985—and it was not introduced until April 1988. It replaced the former widow's allowance, which used to be paid at a higher rate than other widows' benefits for the first six months of widowhood. If the widow's allowance had not been abolished, it would have increased over that period from £50·10 a week to £72·80—an increase of 45 per cent. On

that basis, the £1,000 should now be £1,450—the Government have made enormous savings by cutting the amount given to widows.
In Committee, Social Security Ministers take an affable approach; we all find them persuasive and want to believe what we are told. But it is interesting to recall that, when the widow's allowance was replaced by a lump sum widow's payment in 1986, the present Secretary of State resisted an amendment providing for automatic annual increases and told the Standing Committee:
When the final decisions on all rates of the new benefits under the Bill are taken in the autumn of 1987, we shall obviously consider whether it would be appropriate to change the level of widow's benefit stated in the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 April 1986; c. 1439.]
Will the Minister say why it has not been considered appropriate to change the important benefit given to widows? In 1986, the Committee might well have taken a different view of the proposal if the Minister had admitted that the £1,000 payment was to be frozen indefinitely.
Although most of the means-tested benefit rates are increasing in line with prices—excluding the housing benefits—the disregards are not. In particular, the £3,000 capital disregard has been frozen, not only since it was introduced in 1988, but since it was announced in 1985 in a Green Paper on the reform of social security. Merely to compensate for price increases since then, the benefit should be not £3,000, but £4,350.
All these increases are subtle and hidden, they are not obvious. They are not introduced with a blare of trumpets and trombones from the Dispatch Box, but they represent deep cuts. Similarly, since it was increased in November 1983 the £500 capital limit for social fund payments has been frozen for everyone except those aged 60 or over. Et was then the capital limit for single payments under the supplementary benefit regulations. Since then, prices have risen by more than 50 per cent., so the limit should be more than £750 just to keep pace with inflation, let alone with earnings.
The child benefit regulations provide £1 extra for the single family. I remember in another Committee discussing a comment by Beveridge, when he talked about certain anomalies and said he hoped that they were buried for ever and would never again rise from their dishonoured grave, but for us, another little nasty has been resurrected by that extra £1. An important advantage of child benefit compared to the pre-1976 system of family allowance is that it is payable at the same rate for every child in the family. The family allowance excluded the first child, and complicated rules were needed to decide, if parents were separated—unhappily, an increasing occurrence—whether the two children were members of the same family or different families.
The extra £1 reintroduces those complications, since it is payable only to the first child. Hence the incomprehensible provisions of regulation 2(b), about which I have written to the Minister—I longingly await his reply. If my interpretation of the regulation is correct, it will, in some cases, disqualify both parents from receiving the extra £1, which is obviously nonsense and cannot be the intention.
Further anomalies arise from the statutory sick pay regulations, upon which we shall vote tonight, and I believe that they will be the subject of a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
Tonight, Social Security Ministers are working their old magic like the old illusionists they are and providing, up


front, obvious little benefits—tiny lollipops; but under the welter of complex social security legislation, there are deep and serious cuts.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who produced his statistics more briefly than the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who kept us for 42 minutes and spent hardly any time on the orders.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West forgot to remind us that it was a Labour Chancellor who, in 1967, was the first to try to take family allowance away from the majority of families. He also forgot to tell us about the child benefit cheat—when the House approved the move to combine child tax allowances and family allowances to produce a child benefit, with which the Labour Government refused to go ahead. He also talked about a Christmas bonus of £2,000, but forgot to tell us that the Labour party took away a Christmas bonus of £10. This strikes me as the sort of sterile speech which we are used to hearing from the hon. Member for Oldham, West, and the sooner he is moved on to other pastures to make way for the hon. Member for Newport, West, the faster we shall proceed in our debates.
There are some serious problems to tackle in the years ahead, and we should approve the orders. I shall spend a few moments talking about what has been called child benefit, but which I think should be called child cash allowance. In the mid-1970s, we discussed whether it would be more sensible to get rid of child tax allowances, whereby the rich received more and people below the tax threshold got nothing. No one then anticipated that the name "child benefit" would mean that it would always be argued about in the bilateral discussions between the Department of Social Security and the Treasury.
A problem was anticipated, which was why my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who became the Chancellor, and Patrick Jenkin, the then Member for Wanstead and Woodford, agreed in 1978 that child benefit would not be taken into account in social security spending but would, in effect, be netted off against tax.
We face two problems, for which I do not in any way blame the present Front Bench team or the Chief Secretaries over the years. It is in the nature of the bilaterals for the Chief Secretary to ask how he can squeeze down Government spending, while the Department of Social Security wants to concentrate help on those who most need it. Those are the two functions; the problem is a functional one.
I have a proposal that I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to comment on in winding up. I expect that he will spend most of his time batting the hon. Member for Oldham, West round the court. I suggest, first, that the debate should consider whether there should be an allowance for the child. If the answer is clearly yes, taxable capacity is reduced and needs are increased. Plainly there should be a child allowance. Secondly, is it better for the allowance to be a tax allowance or cash? It should be a cash allowance and decisions about the level of such allowances should be removed from the Department of Social Security, thereby lifting one of the

burdens from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Decisions about child allowance should be made by the Treasury.
I have discovered a secret in the House. In answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle), my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury said that she would not answer any questions about child benefit because the Budget is on the way. That reply is contained in the Official Report of 31 January 1991, column 1094. The Minister of State gave the same reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn). I do not think that that was a coded signal, because I do not think that the next Budget will set the level of child cash allowances. If I am wrong and I have underestimated the speed at which the Treasury accepts the logic of an argument, I shall willingly apologise, by public press release and not secretly in the House.
The term "child benefit" is a mistake. It is sensible for the Treasury to ask the Department of Social Security to be the paying agency, but the allowance must be taken out of the public expenditure round. That is where things have gone wrong. It is wrong to say that, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) had continued as Prime Minister, we would not have had the same improvement. I believe what I have heard—that the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury, now my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security had agreed and shown the results of their agreement to my right hon. Friend the previous Prime Minister before all the excitement.
The freeze for the three years before that was a mistake, and I said so when I was a Minister. If we are to avoid such mistakes, we must change the name of the benefit and transfer the responsibility. When we do that, we will make further progress and the child allowance will not just be indexed to inflation, but increased. There was newspaper speculation that the previous Prime Minister had some people in.

Mr. Newton: I had no intention of getting involved in this issue. I thought that I had listened carefully to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). If the hon. Gentleman seriously suggested or implied that the child benefit increase had anything to do with the change of Prime Minister and leadership of the Conservative party, he was talking utter nonsense. The uprating statement was made the best part of a month before the events in question.

Mr. Bottomley: I do not think that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said that. It was mentioned slightly earlier, when we were discussing new and old regimes. I hope that we can move the matter forward. Child allowance should be cash or a tax allowance. I hope that we will hear less from David Willetts until he comes to the House.

Sir Timothy Raison: I cannot give an authoritative answer on these issues, but my hon. Friend should explain why he thinks that the Treasury would be more generous than the Department of Social Security.

Mr. Bottomley: The Treasury would have to consider the matter when it considered the proportion of mortgage relief granted to people with incomes of more than £20,000 a year. About 50 per cent. of that relief goes to those of us


who are so poor that we have mortgages of £30,000 or more and pay tax at the rate of 40 per cent. or more. The value of the tax relief to two people, perhaps television producers or trade union officials, with a combined income of £70,000 a year, is equivalent to 12 child benefits every year and not just during the years when they have children. When the Treasury and the Inland Revenue look at the issue, they will come up with the answer that they used to give and not an answer relating to the structural problem and the name problem.
Having trespassed on the House's hospitality for the second day running, I had better stop. I hope that my speech has been noted. May I please be told whom to ask to get involved in these discussions—whether they are members of the party or the Government? Perhaps that information could also be given to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). That would enable all of us to move forward, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison) before he moves off to advertising. I hope that the House can find some suitable structure.

Mr. Graham Allen: I am pleased to reply to my first debate on social security. This is probably the last uprating debate before the general election, and therefore the last time that I and my hon. Friends will speak on uprating from this side of the House. In that context, it is worth looking back at the social security dark ages, from which we shortly hope to emerge, and towards the enlightenment that is about to begin.
I reaffirm the whole notion of national insurance. It is to the credit of neither Conservatives nor Labour Governments that ordinary people now feel remote from and unconnected to national insurance, which has become an almost secret tax raising revenue of billions of pounds. One of our prime tasks in government will be to ensure that we not only address the level and scope of benefits but that we return to the whole idea of a communal insurance policy. We shall return that idea to the heart of the civilised values that we cherish.
There is such a thing as society, and our standard will be an honest national insurance fund separate from taxation and able to meet needs as they arise. That will be a monumental task, and that is evident when we look at the overgrowth of political expediency and short-tennism which encrusts the present system. One of the worst abuses of that system has been the rip-off of our pension funds to the tune of perhaps £10 billion. That matter is still being investigated by the Public Accounts Committee, which will no doubt report in due course.

Mr. Scott: It is important for the hon. Gentleman to clarify his suggestion.. Is he saying that the whole of the social security system as we presently understand it, with its contributory and non-contributory benefits, will be funded from a new national insurance fund? If so, how will contributions to that fund be paid by employers and employees, and what will be the level of contribution?

Mr. Allen: No, I am not suggesting that. If I am ever in charge of a review, I shall rule nothing in and rule nothing out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the orders.

Mr. Allen: I shall resist any temptation by the Minister of State to go wide of the terms of the orders.
There is evident extravagance and profligacy about subsidising and sweetening private pension companies. Therefore, I hope that no Conservative Member is brainless enough to ask where all the money will come from to give decent pensions to the elderly and adequate child benefit to the mothers. The great SERPS robbery—a wholly party political racket—makes even the £1 million a day fraud by employers on insurance stamps look like a minor misdemeanour, yet both sets of villains have escaped attention—first, because of the technical nature of the offences and, secondly, because the victims are tomorrow's pensioners. Like the sleeping victims of a burglary, they do not know what awaits them and will not find out until morning.
Many of today's pensioners know better, because they have seen what the Government have done to the basic state pension. However hard the Conservatives wriggle, and whatever statistical wheeze they employ, the plain fact that hangs around their necks and will stay there until the election is that breaking the earnings link has robbed the single pensioner of £12·80 a week and a couple of £20·50 a week. That is not a one-off smash and grab, but a recidivist return each and every week so long as they shall live.
Much has been said today about child benefit. The uprating, such as it is, bears all the hallmarks of a "John'll fix it". First, there is a lack of will to tackle the real problem, thinly concealed by a half-hearted, half-baked and, above all, half-priced gesture. One can picture the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the last days of the Thatcher Reich—with high interest rates, a massive trade deficit and looming recession all around him—struggling with the knotty problem of which twin should be awarded the new first-born benefit—or should it have been the "Eastbourne" benefit?
Not that honest John would ever try to purchase short-term popularity for a by-election victory. I cannot help thinking that the phrase
Child benefit will continue to be paid as now
must have been put in the Conservative manifesto in 1987 by somebody, perhaps a junior Social Security Minister—some anal retentive determined to tell the literal truth, but misleading the gullible, rather in the way that the Prime Minister said recently that the last Labour Government did not have a cold weather payments scheme. That too is literally true, but it ignores the fact that, because of the generous extra needs payments and the electricity discount scheme then in operation, but abolished by the Conservative Government, such a scheme was not necessary. It is petty, it is cheap, and "it is coming to a social security office near you".
Whatever way one looks at these uprating orders, one sees a shabby deal—a budget cut here, a corner cut there. The social fund is a very sad example. The fund is meant to help the most needy in our society—those from broken homes, ex-prisoners, former drug abusers, the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped, and the plain poor. Despite this, the budget is a fraction of the one under the scheme that it replaced, and two thirds of payments come in the form of loans rather than grants—loans, to people already trying to live on £30 or £40 a week.
The Conservative Government should be ashamed of themselves. Instead, they find someone else to blame. In this instance, they foist the blame on the local offices of the


Department of Social Security, whose social fund budgets are so constricted that ridiculous anomalies arise. At the Public Accounts Committee on Monday, I drew the attention of the permanent secretary of the Department to a particular case in my constituency. A battered wife from the Nottingham, North women's refuge is not high enough on the priority list to get from the Nottingham social security office a grant for a bed, a table and some other furniture. Had she lived in nearby Alfreton, she could have received those payments. Such are the differences in priorities from one office to another.
Meanwhile, people surviving on income support are among those who are being squeezed hardest by increases in water, electricity and gas charges. Public utilities were privatised, in a "money no object" exercise, by the selfsame Conservative Government. The present Government can blow billions of pounds of North sea oil revenue, yet there are 130,000 individuals on transitional additions-130,000 people who have not had an increase in income support for three years.
Others who will judge for themselves the generosity of the uprating include the rising numbers of people being made redundant as a major recession steamrolls them. A few of the severely disabled are assisted by the independent living fund, which the Conservative Government still refuse to put on a statutory footing, despite the obvious and chronic demand.
I am very proud to say that the independent living fund is in my constituency. The officers who serve it do a magnificent job—a job of which the Secretary of State and his team and, indeed, the rest of us should be proud. None the less, it is a scheme created to put a problem—as the Government see it, a public expenditure problem—at arm's length. Next, I understand, there may be an agency, or the problem may be referred to local authorities. This is a way of sweeping a difficult situation under the carpet.
The creation of a social security benefits agency is another case in point. When Members of Parliament table questions about matters within the competence of that agency, the answers will not be printed in Hansard for the benefit of all Members, who might then ask questions relating to the benefits of people in their constituencies. Members making such inquiries will receive letters from the chief executive of the agency, and if other Members wish to see those letters, they will have to go to the Library. That undermines what little democracy and accountability this House has in respect of social security matters.

Mr. Ian McCartney: What my hon. Friend is describing is a broken promise. At meetings of the Select Committee on Social Security, it was made absolutely clear that the opportunities to question Ministers about the internal workings of the Departments would be undiminished.

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend has made a very pertinent point. I hope that, even at this stage, the Secretary of State will reconsider the way in which social security matters within the realm of the benefits agency might be brought before this House. This is a central point of parliamentary accountability.
I should like to answer a query about the amount of money spent on state pensions. We can all bandy statistics. This is an area in which that happens all the time. Central

to our commitment to social security expenditure must be the principle that those people who, in some way, are cared for out of social security expenditure should share in the prosperity of the nation. So far as I am concerned, the most startling statistic in this area is the reduction in expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product. Between 1984–85 and 1989–90, expenditure fell from 12·2 per cent. to 10·3 per cent. That is a very significant and sad statistic. Perhaps the Minister of State will comment on it.·

Mr. Nicholas Soames: What would the Labour party do?

Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman asks what we shall do. I do not want to stray too far from my brief, but I am pleased, in reply to a question from a sedentary position, to say that the hon. Gentleman will be made very well aware of our intentions. I do not know whether he has read the Labour party's documents. If not, I shall be very glad to send him copies. We shall, of course, insist on an immediate increase of £5 a week in the pensions of single people. That £5 will be over and above the increase that will be made in April. In the case of a married couple, the increase will be £8. Thereafter, there will be immediate linkage to earnings or inflation, whichever is the higher.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: How much will it cost?

Mr. Allen: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), also from a sedentary position, asks how much it will cost. I shall gladly give him figures provided by his own Government. The pension rise will cost £2·3 billion, and the increase in child benefit will cost £0·75 billion. I make this commitment. Indeed, it is in the Labour party documents for all to see. [Interruption.] There is no hidden agenda here. Child benefit will be restored to the level of 1979. In other words, we are prepared to invest in children and in the future of this nation.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the Labour party committed to restoring child benefit to the record level of 1983, or does it consider the lower level of 1979 as the limit? Is it committed to expenditure in any other areas? What proportion of the total increase in public spending promised by the Labour party is made up of increases in child benefit? Is it 100, 50, or 30 per cent. of additional spending?

Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman has a cheek. He was a member of a Government who have presided over a reduction in child benefit during the past four or five years. I shall say slowly, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that the next Labour Government will return child benefit to its value when Labour was last in office. That would mean a very much higher level—£2·30 higher than it is under this Government, in which the hon. Gentleman served for many years.
I must make it clear that, much as I would be pleased to make commitments about spending in other areas, the hon. Gentleman must know that no additional commitments can be undertaken until such are considered appropriate in the light of economic developments and economic growth [Interruption.]. Hon. Members must allow me to finish my remarks. I should love to answer questions on health, but unfortunately my remit does not stretch that far, just yet.
There can be little doubt that, as the election comes closer, the Prime Minister is seeing in his private opinion polls confirmation that the Conservative myth that being the party of the family is buried under an incontrovertible mountain of payment hooks. In view of the Prime Minister's style, I guarantee that behind the grin there will be more social security fixes, more opportunist gifts, a little Budget sweetener here and a little panic response there. The day of reckoning is coming sooner than Conservative Members think. For those dependent upon pensions and benefits, that day cannot come soon enough.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): As the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) came towards the end of his speech, we had some insight into the scale of commitments that the Labour party will offer in its next election manifesto. It may wrap the manifesto in weasel words, but today we have had a commitment on pensioners which appears to amount to some £3 billion. In Committee on the Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Bill, we discussed a variety of Labour amendments that would have amounted to a further £3 billion expenditure. There is also another range of commitments on child support.
Every time I face the Labour party across the Floor of the House, I am reminded of the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) about the last Labour Government promising the earth and delivering the International Monetary Fund. I am afraid that that is exactly the position in which any future Labour Government—remote though that possibility may be—will very quickly find themselves.
Today, we are discussing a series of orders, the most important being the uprating order, which provides additional resources of £5 billion for the social security system. The Labour party may say that it is possible to have generous increases across the board, but our approach to social security is to protect the generality of people in receipt of social security benefit from the impact of price increases. Within that overall approach, we wish to ensure that additional help goes to the most vulnerable groups in our society. I should like to refer briefly to each of those groups.
We must, of course, consider the position of pensioners in our society. Any society owes a debt to those who have spent their lives working in the community, for society, and who then look to the state and to the companies which employed them to look after them in their retirement. As was said earlier, the real standard of living of pensioners as a whole has increased dramatically in recent years. Since 1979, it has risen by 31 per cent. in real terms compared with a 3 per cent. increase under the last Labour Government. Indeed, pensioners' incomes have risen twice as fast as the incomes of the remainder of the population.
I know that it is part of the Labour party's attitude of mind that it should think only about the benefits that people receive from the state. We believe that we should consider pensioners' standards of living as they are affected both by their occupational pensions and by the savings that they have accumulated during their working lives, as well as in the context of state benefits. As I said, there has been a 31 per cent. increase in pensioners'

standards of living since we took office in 1979, compared with a 3 per cent. increase under the last Labour Government.
I recognise, as any hon. Member recognises, that I am referring to the general position, and that it disguises the fact that some people have had increases in their standards of living greater then 31 per cent., while others have had a lesser increase. We can all identify with the pensioner who has lost out.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Because of the poll tax.

Mr. Scott: I am not disguising any facts. There are a number of pensioners whose savings were destroyed by inflation during the 1970s. Those people spent most of their working lives at a time when occupational pensions were not so widespread or so generous as they are today. Many working careers were interrupted by the second world war. Our approach, over successive years, has been to give additional help to poorer pensioners. We have provided millions of pounds in additional help for them——

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What about the poll tax?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he should stand up. I would happily give way to him.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister tell the House about the cost of the poll tax to pensioners? Is it not 10 to 15 per cent. of their income? Even pensioners on low incomes have had to suffer that sort of increase.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The poorer pensioners benefit from community charge rebate and from various other help that we have given to those paying the community charge. That help was extended recently. I recognise that there is a group of poorer pensioners, and we have concentrated help on their specific needs rather than making the sort of grandiose promises made by the Opposition.

Mr. John Battle: I regret that I have not been able to contribute to the debate. The Secretary of State made great play of the fact that housing costs were no longer included when working out the uprating statement. The difficulty is that the housing costs element of the retail prices index includes other crucial items such as the poll tax and water rates. People must pay a minimum of 20 per cent. of their poll tax, and must also find the money to pay rising water rates. Is it not true that the uprating of means-tested income support takes no account of those vital increases?

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman would use his influence with some of the council leaders in socialist authorities to hold down the level of community charge, he might be making a sensible contribution to the debate.
In winding up the debate, I seek not to wind up Opposition Members, but to make a serious contribution. I wish to identify groups of people in our society who need some sensible additional help in sustaining their living standards. I want to mention one group that is especially close to my heart, and comes within my job description, and that is disabled people. Again, during our time in office we have more than doubled the provisions for the long-term sick and disabled. We are now spending more


than £10 billion on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled—an increase in real terms of £5·6 billion since we took office. It is easy to talk in such global terms——

Mr. Allen: And to be inaccurate.

Mr. Scott: I am being both precise and accurate. We are talking about the impact on the living standards of the disabled and about the spread of benefits to more and more disabled people during the period of this Government.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware of the difference between an increase in benefits and an increase in the take-up of benefits?

Mr. Scott: That is precisely the point that I was making when the hon. Gentleman sought to intervene. Surely he welcomes as much as I do the fact that many more disabled people are now receiving the benefits to which they are entitled. Those people did not become disabled under this Government; they were there under the Labour Government. They were not receiving the benefit then, but they are now.
Despite the smirk on the face of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) I hope that he will recognise that that is a real point. The last time he was at the Dispatch Box he criticised me in a rather snide way for "marketing" benefits. Of course we want to do that. We want to make people aware of the benefits to which they are entitled and ensure that they take them up. We will go on marketing both our existing benefits and the new ones that will come into operation in April next year in order to ensure that they go to the people who need them.

Mr. Allen: I, too, would criticise my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I do not believe that the Minister is marketing some benefits as well as he could. Were he to do so, the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary would come down on him like a ton of bricks because of the financial implications. Perhaps he will market family credit a little more effectively.

Mr. Scott: With the greatest possible respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is comparatively new to the subject—I am not being patronising—he knows that this area is demand-led. If people apply, they receive the benefit. It is nothing to do with the Chief Secretary. People get the benefits for which they apply and for which they are entitled. We have seen a dramatic increase in the take-up of benefits and we shall go on seeking to ensure that that continues.

Mr. McCartney: Will the Minister explain why one benefit has been taken away from disabled people—the reduced earnings allowance? Most disabled people become disabled as a result of accidents at work. In areas such as mine, where there is mining and heavy engineering, a considerable number of people who were once entitled to that benefit can no longer claim it. Yet they originally received it in recognition of the fact that they had become disabled because of their activities in industry, either as a result of an accident or because of the environment in which they worked. The Government have abolished that allowance.

Mr. Scott: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Last year, I took through the House the Bill that made that change in the benefit system. It is increasingly right that at this time we should concentrate state help on those people who are disabled early in life, perhaps congenitally or as a result of some accident early in life, and who do not have the opportunity to build up entitlements to occupational pensions, compensation from their employers or in other ways. Philosophically that is right. It would be difficult, even for the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who is muttering on the Front Bench, to disagree with that as a principle.

Mr. McCartney: rose——

Mr. Scott: I do not want to get bogged down. I am trying to answer the debate.

Mr. McCartney: To take that to its logical conclusion, what does the Minister say about the young 21-year-old who has an arm amputated and can no longer claim reduced earnings allowance? There are many such specific cases. Thousands occur in industry each year. There is no reason for withdrawing that important benefit from the industrially disabled, other than to reduce public expenditure.

Mr. Scott: What we have done, in essence, is to alter the priorities within the provision for disabled people while increasing it substantially. I do not want to weary the House with the figures. The philosophical approach that I have sought to outline would need widespread approval.
We are concerned too about the needs of low income families and families generally. We are anxious to look at the whole pattern of provision in that area and if hon. Members would like to contact my right hon. Friend or myself and come forward with ideas for improving the pattern of family support as it presently exists, we would be only too happy to listen to them.
The social fund has proved to be an effective, fair and flexible way of meeting needs that are outwith the normal scope of the social security system. I do not disguise from the House my feeling that that is a difficult area. The single payment system did not work particularly well. It was capricious in the extreme. It was doubling in cost every two years, I think, and it was becoming unsustainable. The social fund has proved a sensible way of providing grants and loans to people with exceptional needs at exceptional times while keeping the pattern of expenditure under sensible control. It is straightforward and it is becoming understood by claimants, and I believe that it works in an effective manner.

Mr. Allen: The Minister will be aware of the recent survey conducted by the National Audit Office which showed that one quarter of income support claimants did not know what the social fund was. Once again, wearing his marketing hat, perhaps he could do something about that.

Mr. Scott: If the hon. Gentleman looked back to the pattern of single payments and the geographical and social spread of take-up under that, he would see that there was even less understanding of the single payment scheme than there is now of the social fund. There is an increasing awareness of the social fund and its capacity to help.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to The Independent today


where it says that there were 2,347 deaths during the latest spell of sub-zero temperatures.—[Interruption.] Am I entitled to ask a question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or are the hooligans on the Tory Benches determined that the issue will not be raised? The social fund has been extremely unhelpful when it comes to hypothermia. What does he intend to do about that?

Mr. Scott: I think that the press report to which the hon. Gentleman was referring was mentioned earlier. The Government have responded flexibly and in a commonsense manner to the last period of excessive hard weather in Britain.

Mr. Battle: Are we to get a statement every time it snows?

Mr. Scott: If necessary. If we have a period of general and excessively cold weather, it is sensible for the Government to respond to that in a flexible and common sense manner. We have done it twice already. I admire and respect the hon. Gentleman considerably, but if we had stuck rigidly to the rules, he would have been criticising me. The fact that we responded in a flexible and sensible manner should be a matter of congratulation rather than criticism.
The hon. Gentleman made some complimentary remarks about the independent living fund. In Committee, he has been trying to persuade me to turn that into a completely regulated system removing all the flexibility, all the attention to the individual needs of the claimants judged by social workers in order to produce a package of care. That would not and could not work.
Even the Labour party knows that it is not possible to direct more help to the most vulnerable groups in society while promising vast increases in the generality of provision within the social security system. There are many needs in our society, but it is much better to be able to meet them by identifying particular groups and concentrating help on them.
Social spending today is 40 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979. Most of that growth is the result of the general increases that have protected people against the impact of price increases. Many of them have come about also because of our ability to concentrate help on those most in need. The Government have shown themselves to be caring, and concerned with the needs of the most vulnerable in our society and have produced substantial extra resources to look after them—no lollipops, but real extra money for those who need help most.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Resolved,
That the draft State Scheme Premiums (Actuarial Tables) Amendment Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

STATUTORY SICK PAY

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [22 February], to put successively the Questions on the remaining motions.

Motion made and Question put,

That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 191.

Division No. 83]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Allason, Rupert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cope, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Arbuthnot, James
Couchman, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ashby, David
Curry, David


Atkins, Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Dicks, Terry


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dover, Den


Benyon, W.
Dunn, Bob


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Sir Anthony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Eggar, Tim


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Evennett, David


Boswell, Tim
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bowis, John
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gale, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gardiner, Sir George


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gill, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Burns, Simon
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Butler, Chris
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Butterfill, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gorst, John


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grist, Ian


Chapman, Sydney
Ground, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Churchill, Mr
Hague, William


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hanley, Jeremy






Hannam, John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patnick, Irvine


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hill, James
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Price, Sir David


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Irvine, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irving, Sir Charles
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Janman, Tim
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rost, Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kirkhope, Timothy
 Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shersby, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Sims, Roger


Knox, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Squire, Robin


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Lewis


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Summerson, Hugo


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thorne, Neil


Marlow, Tony
Thornton, Malcolm


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tredinnick, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Trippier, David
 
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Miller, Sir Hal
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Sir David
Viggers, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Morrison, Sir Charles
Walden, George


Moss, Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mudd, David
Waller, Gary


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Walters, Sir Dennis


Nelson, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Tom Sackville




NOES 

Allen, Graham
George, Bruce


Alton, David
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Armstrong, Hilary
Gordon, Mildred


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Gould, Bryan


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Graham, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Battle, John
Hardy, Peter


Beckett, Margaret
Haynes, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Bell, Stuart
Henderson, Doug


Bellotti, David
Hinchliffe, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Benton, Joseph
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hood, Jimmy


Bidwell, Sydney
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Illsley, Eric


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Janner, Greville


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Callaghan, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kilfedder, James


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Canavan, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Lamond, James


Cartwright, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leighton, Ron


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lewis, Terry


Clay, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Clelland, David
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Corbett, Robin
McAllion, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Crowther, Stan
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
McCrea, Rev William


Cummings, John
McFall, John


Cunningham, Dr John
McKelvey, William


Dalyell, Tam
McLeish, Henry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Maclennan, Robert


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Doran, Frank
McWilliam, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Madden, Max


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maginnis, Ken


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Eadie, Alexander
Marek, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Martlew, Eric


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Faulds, Andrew
Meale, Alan


Fearn, Ronald
Michael, Alun


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)


Fisher, Mark
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Flynn, Paul
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Rhodri


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Morley, Elliot


Foster, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fraser, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fyfe, Maria
Mowlam, Marjorie


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Murphy, Paul






Nellist, Dave
Snape, Peter


O'Brien, William
Soley, Clive


O'Hara, Edward
Spearing, Nigel


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Strang, Gavin


Patchett, Terry
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Prescott, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Turner, Dennis


Quin, Ms Joyce
Vaz, Keith


Radice, Giles
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Redmond, Martin
Wallace, James


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Reid, Dr John
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Richardson, Jo
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W. (Carmthen)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wilson, Brian


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sedgemore, Brian
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mr. Jack Thompson.


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Small Employers' Relief) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]

Killingholme Generating Stations (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from the Government Front Bench for a statement to be made about the current position in the Gulf? You may be aware that developments in the past few hours suggest—I use the word advisedly—that the ingredients for a ceasefire may now be available. This is clearly a matter of the greatest interest to the House, and the whole House would expect the Government to make a statement at the earliest opportunity about a development of such significance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am not aware of any requests for a statement, but I am sure that what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said will have been heard by those on the Front Bench.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to know whether the Bill is valid. I do not wish to question the Chair, but you will recall the same question being asked in relation to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. Despite its lengthy consideration in Committee and the fact that no amendment was allowed to be made to it, when that Bill went to the other place it was found to be defective, and to contain an erroneous date. Can we have an assurance that this Bill is valid, has been vetted and is perfectly in order and that, if that is not the case, it will be slung out?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is in order. I hope that we can now get on with the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard what you said, but may I refer you to what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mar. Knapman) said when he introduced the Bill on 14 January? He said:
Those works will serve generating stations being built under powers already granted by the Secretary of State for Energy."—[Official Report, 14 January 1991; Vol. 183, c. 667.]
It is widely reported that the Government are on a three-line Whip to support the Bill. How can it he described as a private Member's Bill when it is intended to give two power stations enabling powers that, according to the hon. Member for Stroud, have already been granted by the Secretary of State? Surely this is a Government Bill and, if there is a three-line Whip on it tonight, as there was on another Bill last week, it cannot qualify under the private procedure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman means, of course, a private Bill, not a private Member's Bill. His point would be entirely in order if made during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Despite what has just been said, the detail of the Bill was substantially discussed at the time of the revival


motion on 14 January. If the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) had quoted me a little more extensively, he would have come up with the answer to his question.
The Bill is extremely mundane, dull and technical, so it is entirely appropriate that the dullest grey Member, in the dullest grey suit should put across the message. Indeed, he is ideal. In the debate on the revival motion I said that National Power plc and PowerGen plc are already building the power stations that are the subject of tonight's debate. No matter what fuel is used, water will be required for cooling purposes.

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has the building of the power stations gone ahead without approval for the measures in this Bill? Is that not a contempt of this House? If one of our constituents was to build an extension to his house without the proper approvals, I am sure civil servants would tell him to take it down.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can make his points in the debate. Perhaps this is a good opportunity for me to remind the House that the Bill does not deal with the building of generating stations. It deals with auxiliary works and, as a consequence, it is comparatively narrow.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have given a ruling which to some extent may circumscribe our debate. In the context of the proposition that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is about to advance, we shall consider the generation of power by gas. That has implications for this country and for the European Community. I hope that I have not misinterpreted you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that you will not circumscribe the debate. After all, we are discussing the implementation of our power generation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Bill does not deal with power stations. It deals with auxiliary works. I do not want to restrict unduly the scope of the debate on a private Bill. Let us see how we get on.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friends and I had high hopes that Opposition Members would have read the Bill since we debated the revival motion.

Mr. Redmond: Before the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) was interrupted by those points of order, did he say that this simple and mundane Bill related to constructing lagoons? Does it deal with extracting water into lagoons?

Mr. Knapman: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's last sentence.

Mr. Redmond: I assume that the hon. Gentleman will read from a prepared speech. Perhaps he could go back a few sentences because I was distracted earlier and missed his opening comments. I think that he mentioned the word "lagoons".

Mr. Knapman: I may well have been ad libbing. That might surprise hon. Members. I described the Bill as mundane and technical. Opposition Members may disagree because they think that it deals with the building of power stations. It does not.
The Bill is required for the construction of the necessary cooling water works and, in that case, only to overcome certain prohibitions in the Humberside Conservancy Act 1905, which no doubt Opposition Members have read with care. The Bill does not seek to circumvent any planning permission procedures. The power station developments already have consent and deemed planning permission after full local consultation.
We look forward to hearing from the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

Mr. James Pawsey: We look forward to his words of wisdom.

Mr. Knapman: Indeed, and we appreciated his wisdom during the debate on the revival motion.
The objections to the Bill are rather sad.

Mr. Michael Brown: Would my hon. Friend care to rephrase that? There are no objections to the Bill because there were no petitions against it. There are no objections from my constituents in the area where the power station is to be built and there is no objection from the Labour-controlled Humberside county council.

Mr. Knapman: My hon. Friend has made a very good point and the way in which he has looked after the interests of his constituents contrasts starkly——

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was one petition against the Bill, but it was withdrawn. Is the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) suggesting that hon. Members cannot raise objections to private Bills?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I suspect that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will catch my eye later and it would be in order to make that point then.

Mr. Knapman: We fully understand, particularly at this time of political consensus, why Opposition Members have to say what they say, but we believe that it is a little sad that hon. Members have to act as delegates rather than representatives. We understand the reasons for the objections, but the Bill has nothing to do with coal. It deals simply with inlet and outlet pipes on the River Humber.

Mr. Hood: There was one objection. Who objected and why was the objection withdrawn?

Mr. Knapman: I understand that the Coalfield Communities Campaign objected on the general principle of how the proposal would affect coalfield communities, but it withdrew the objection. It realised, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, that the Bill has nothing to do with coal.
By using the blocking motion as a field on which to fight this mother of all legislative battles, the Opposition are on thin ground. Whenever an issue involves competition, privatisation or capitalism, the Opposition erect a mental Maginot line. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) recently said that the Labour party must learn to run capitalism better than the Conservatives. That news does not seem to have percolated through to the Opposition Members who are present tonight.

Mr. Kevin Barron: What my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) advocated will not be too difficult in view of the state of the economy under this Government.

Mr. Knapman: The Leader of the Opposition will not have an opportunity to put his ideas into practice. If, however, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) wants to make a start in that direction, he should support the Bill.
The hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) objected to the Bill in the House. That did not do them credit, because they have caused much delay and a great deal of expense. What is the point of that?

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is, like me, an official of the all-party conservation committee. The main reason for my view of the matter is that it is scandalously unwise to use our relatively limited reserves of gas for steam raising when, in only a few years or generations, we will bitterly regret that waste of a prime resource.

Mr. Knapman: I understand that the power stations use roughly 0·1 per cent. of our proven gas reserves annually.
I wonder why the hon. Member for Wentworth does not take account of the views of the Labour-controlled county council. There have been wide consultations on the Bill. Most recently, the Central Electricity Generating Board, acting on behalf of National Power and PowerGen, sent details of the Bill to 32 interested parties. One was Glanford borough council, which I should have thought might have known what was needed in the area. It replied to the Central Electricity Generating Board on 11 December 1988, saying:
Further to my letter dated 16 November 1989 I am now able to inform you that on 7 December the Borough Council's Planning Committee resolved that Glanford wishes to raise no objections to the proposals contained in the Bill.
Then there is the Humberside county council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has already mentioned. It is Labour-controlled and it has no objection to the Bill. It does not seem to share the Opposition's views. At the time of the revival motion, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) said that people would not be aware of what is going on—unaware, presumably, that he was criticising the county council and the borough council, which, in any case, are Labour-controlled. I am sure that he would not wish to criticise his colleagues in such numbers.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Knapman: Many hon. Members wish to speak. However, I shall give way once more.

Mr. Barnes: There is also the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) did a service in tabling a blocking motion because it enables the Bill to be discussed fully and properly. It provides an opportunity to present in great detail what the hon. Gentleman regards as the fantastic benefits of the Bill. I wait for that to be done so that my colleagues and I can begin to take on board the arguments for the Bill. We do not have to accept Bills on the nod. As has been said, specific arguments must be examined by the whole House. This Bill was never in front of any council.

Mr. Knapman: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in this matter. He was probably not present at the time of the revival motion.

Mr. Barnes: I was here then. I did not speak, but the same point was made against my tabling a blocking motion. I remember that.

Mr. Knapman: We would have greatly looked forward to the hon. Gentleman staying in the Chamber for longer during the debate on the revival motion. In view of all the interest that has been expressed, I wonder why local constituencies that are represented by the Labour party are not taking a more active interest in the matter. Where, for instance, is the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)? Is he representing the views of his constituents? What are his views? Do some people believe that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe agrees with the Humberside county council, which is controlled by Labour, or does he agree with his hon. Friends that the Bill should be defeated? We do not know because he is not here.

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am asking you for some help. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is referring to Opposition Members having no interest in the matter and wanting to interfere in what he thinks is a local county council matter. Am I correct in asking him to provide the House with information about why he sponsors the Bill? Is he being paid for sponsoring it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would not be right for me to ask the hon. Gentleman for information but, if he would like to provide it, it would be in order for him to do so.

Mr. Knapman: I have an apology to make. I should have disclosed an interest. The hon. Gentleman asked me about this matter during the debate on the revival motion. I purchased 150 shares in the London electricity distribution company. I might be due for a profit, if I sell them tomorrow, of about £100, but the expenses might outweigh the profit. I am trying not to let that prospect colour my judgment too strongly. What I said about the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe also applies to the hon. Member for Great Grimbsy (Mr. Mitchell), whose constituency can be only two or three miles away from that of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe.

Mr. Michael Brown: I have nothing but the most superb relations with the—Labour—hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), both of whom are excellent constituency Members of Parliament. The fact that they are not here and have not signed the blocking motion demonstrates exactly what my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, it is interesting that the only Humberside Members of Parliament present are my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) and me.

Mr. Knapman: I assure my hon. Friend that I am not trying to do anything to upset the good relations between him and his Labour neighbours. However, the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe and for Great Grimsby have a constituency interest, because many of their constituents work in the power stations that are now being constructed or will have jobs when they are


constructed. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby is not here. He is not usually short of words, but we realise that he may have other commitments.
The borough and county councils, negotiated with the parish councils, about 29 other bodies were consulted, and not one has any objection. It is true that, as a result of consultations, a number of amendments were made, but they were in the form of protective clauses for third parties.
The site was chosen for various reasons, including the fact that it had previously been shown to be suitable for power station development. That has been true since the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Act 1972, not least because the site lies within an area designated in the Humberside structure plan as an estuary-related industrial area, but there are other obvious reasons why it should be a suitable site. It is an existing area of industrial development. The stations can be built without significant environmental effect. The area is obviously well located in relation to North sea gas. It is suitably located for connection to the national grid system. Above all—this is the crux of the matter—it is close to a source of cooling water. It is obvious that the resources of the River Humber estuary make it the most suitable, convenient and economic source of cooling water for the two power stations.
Hon. Members will know that the 1972 Act specified only one intake and only one outfall, but the number of conduits in each intake and each outfall were unspecified. If only one pipe had been constructed, the diameter of each would have been about 3 m or 4 m. Under this Bill, the pipes would have to be between only 0·6 m to 1 m in diameter.
In the 1972 Act, there was a direct cooled system. The heat was rejected directly to a body of water. In an indirect system, such as the one proposed in the Bill, heat is rejected to the atmosphere by evaporative cooling in the cooling towers, and that is required only to replace that which is lost by evaporation and to prevent the concentration of dissolved salts. It is obvious that a great deal less water is required. Under the Bill, the longest specified pipe is only 390 m, and the longest outfall is 290 m long. Those figures are little more than half the length of the pipes that were envisaged in the earlier Act. As a result, none of the proposed cooling water pipes will extend beyond the jetty line or into the main navigable channels.
In response to repeated requests from Opposition Members, I shall now give more detail about the number of works requested under the Killingholme Bill. The Bill provides for six sets of intakes and outfalls, although only two sets are presently required. Subsequent design alterations mean that PowerGen and National Power do not need all the sets at present, although the site is large enough to accommodate further developments. To develop the full potential of the site, both companies may require extra cooling water pipes. The Bill will enable that to be realised without wasting more valuable parliamentary time.
From the environmental point of view, which weighs heavily with my hon. Friends, the pipes will be buried in the bed of the River Humber so that the crown of the pipe is at least 2 m below the existing river bed level. Although the final construction details are to be confirmed by the companies' turnkey contractors, one possible method is to

dredge a trench in the Humber, join the whole length of pipe on the land, and float it out into the river. An alternative method of installation would be to join several lengths of pipes on land and attach them to a frame. The Bill, the substance of which has already been before the House, merely seeks renewed approval for pipes to be laid in the Humber estuary.
I hope that the House will feel able to grant the Bill its Second Reading so that National Power and PowerGen can continue with their construction programme without any further unnecessary and costly delay.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am privileged to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this debate. Although I recognise that it is a narrow debate and I shall try to respect that fact, I am sure that you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when such a Bill will have a major effect on another industry and on thousands of jobs, debate on it should allow hon. Members to express their fears about the distress that it may cause to that other industry and to the many thousands of people who work in it.
Clause 29 refers to protection for the British Coal Corporation. That seems ironic, given the fact that the past few years—and even more recently—have seen the devastation of British Coal. It is worth noting that National Power and Associated British Ports, which are mentioned at length in the Bill, have recently become happy bedfellows.
It is right that the Bill should receive the strictest scrutiny, because the recent history of Associated British Ports leads one to demand such scrutiny. When the Associated British Ports Bill was going through the House, sponsored by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is now busy chatting to the Whip, both the Committee and the House were deliberately deceived. Indeed, without that deceit, the Bill would never have got through the House.
At the time, two Bills—those relating to the Immingham and the Killingholme ports—were being considered by opposed Private Bill Committees. The Committee requested that the Killingholme Bill should be amended to prevent the company from being sold in less than 10 years. Because that was not acceptable to the company, the Bill did not see the light of day again. However, during the debate on the Immingham Bill, no such assurance was given, and the Bill passed through the House. The Committee issued a special report, which hon. Members will no doubt remember, highlighting the fact that the Bill was acceptable to the Committee only if the Government took action to protect British Coal and the jobs there. The Government have never taken any such action.
Under this Bill, the two power stations will be run on gas. That is a further nail in the coffin of this country's coal industry. As a result of the Immingham Bill, Associated British Ports will now be the happy bedfellow of National Power and PowerGen, because they are to take over 80 per cent. of the company that has been set up to equip and run operations at the port. That fact was never mentioned during the Committee's deliberations.
Incidentally, it was never mentioned in the many debates on these matters in the House by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Did he


know?"] Of course he knew. I am not suggesting for one moment that, at any stage during the Committee's deliberations, National Power and PowerGen had any association with Associated British Ports. However, I am accusing Associated British Ports, the sponsor of the legislation and the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, of a complete con and a deceit. I repeat that the House was deceived. Without such deceit, the Bill would never have seen the light of day.
During those deliberations, assurances were given by no less a person than Sir Frank Layfield that the major improvements to the port at Immingham
were not designed specifically in any sense of the word for coal purposes. They depend mainly upon general industrial and other consumers' current needs and the need to eliminate present existing wasteful difficulties and practices. If passed it will have that effect in our submission.
However, that is not the case now——

Mr. Allen McKay: It never was.

Mr. Lofthouse: As my hon. Friend says, it never was.
The port has been erected and extended purely and simply to allow foreign coal to be imported. That has been done on behalf of National Power, which, according to Mr. John Baker, is to import 50 per cent. of its coal after 1993. The Bill, however, will allow the building of two gas generating plants—[Interruption.] This is a serious matter, despite the smirks on the faces of some Conservative Members.
I am pleased that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy, the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) is now in his place. In the past week, the Select Committee has taken evidence from expert witnesses, one of whom told us that National Power is negotiating not only to import foreign coal—we heard that evidence from Shell, with which National Power is already negotiating—but, if the witness is corrct, to purchase foreign coal mines.
What a ridiculous situation when there have been another four, five or six pit closures in recent weeks, including one at Allerton Bywater. About 500 of the 800 men who work there live in my constituency. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is not in his place, because Allerton Bywater is in his constituency, and I should have thought that he would be here to defend it.

Mr. Hardy: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recall that, during Energy questions on Monday, Conservative Members boasted about the enormous sums of money that had been invested in the coal industry during the lifetime of this Government. Have they no thought for the public money that they have invested when they encourage actions that render the investment useless?

Mr. Lofthouse: I share my hon. Friend's views.
The Bill must be scrutinised as thoroughly as possible, I do not trust anything that Associated British Ports has got its fingers in. As I have already said, National Power, PowerGen and Associated British Ports look as if they have a cosy little arrangement. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that National Power and PowerGen will welcome British Coal being run down to a size—which I have forecast in the past few months—of about 10,000 men and 10 to 12 pits by the mid-1990s. They will gladly

get their greedy hands on those pits, if, God forbid, the Government get back into power and the coal mining industry is privatised.
Any Conservative Member who supports the Bill supports a measure which encourages the burning of gas at the expense of British coal and sterilises millions and millions of tonnes of coal in Britain—millions of tonnes of natural energy within our own shores. Yet they know full well that, in less than a decade, we shall not be able to meet the demands of power generators in Britain. They will allow us to become completely dependent on our foreign competitors to supply our main source of energy once the gas is no longer there and the oil is not always there any more. Yet hon. Members know that, once a mine is closed and the coal is sterilised, one can never return and mine the coal.
It is nothing short of criminal. The Bill will help to make us dependent for our energy supplies. In my view, National Power and PowerGen are making it clear that they have no great concern for the interests of Britain. All they are interested in is the commercial side of their operation, short-term fluctuations and a short-term buck at the expense of long-term supplies. The Bill goes some way towards helping them to do that.
It is fairly obvious that our pleadings and warnings over many years about the national supply of energy have fallen on deaf ears. How long can it go on before Conservative Members realise what is happening? There cannot be any other reason for running down the British coal industry than Tory dogma. There is no logic in the arguments. One cannot make an economic argument in the medium term, although it can be done for the short term. The only reason is that, throughout recent years and especially since 1984, the Government have been so blinded by political dogma that they cannot see anything beyond their blinkered desire to close down British mines.
Britain will eventually pay the penalty for the Government's stupid policies. I assume that the Bill will be accepted tonight. I hope that the Opposed Private Bill Committee will make sure, in view of the cosy arrangements between National Power and PowerGen and Associated British Ports, that guarantees are written into the Bill for British Coal, which is referred to in the Bill. I hope that the deceit which occurred after the Associated British Ports Bill passed through the House will not be repeated. So far, no one has denied or disproved that that deceit took place.
I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for Rochford, the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee. or the Chairman of the Opposed Private Bill Committee on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. But the hon. Member for Rochford must think privately that he was in some way conned when he chaired that important Committee, in which he had to give the casting vote time and time again. Knowing the hon. Gentleman as I do, I believe that, when he considers the evidence given to him, he must think about the decisions that he made on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and that he was conned. I wonder what he would do now if he were chairing the Committee and had in his possession the information that we have now.
My view—I do not expect the hon. Member for Rochford to comment on it—is that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill would not have passed through the House or even seen the light of day. I hope that the Bill


before the House today will be scrutinised to the highest degree before the Committee and the House allows it to proceed.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has sincere, deeply held views in support of the coal industry. He has done so for many years. He knows that I have always been most supportive of the coal industry in the Energy Select Committee, on which we both serve. I spent many of my early years in industry in an associated company within the coal-fired power station industry.
There is no doubt that since the miners' strike the coal industry has responded tremendously well, increasing its productivity by about 87 per cent. The future of that industry lies to a great extent within its own hands. The men on the coal face are responding well. They will always have a strong place in our nation and will always have my continued support. Having said that, we must think about continuity and security of supply. We must think about options.
Opposition Members who feel like voting against this Bill may not by so doing put first the interests of the north-east, and certainly those of the whole country, remembering the national grid. Indeed, they may not put first the interests of their own families and of industrial companies in their constituencies. Whatever else happens, we have a responsibility in Britain to keep the lights burning and the factories running. The only way in which we can be certain of doing that is by having a good mix of forms of power stations, so that we can always draw our power generation from sources which are not under threat.

Mr. Allen McKay: It appears that the difference between the hon. Gentleman's views and our views is narrow. He talks about a mix. The Opposition have always talked about a mix of energy supplies. But we have talked about a national mix—not a market mix, which is entirely different. There should be a national energy policy which takes into account the whole system of energy supplies in Britain and eliminates current waste.

Mr. Dickens: That is a different matter altogether. I am not a Minister, so I cannot deliver a national energy policy, but there is some merit in what the hon. Gentleman says.
We must remember that we generate power by natural gas and by coal. and perhaps later by coal gasification. We must consider oil and nuclear energy. Unfortunately, wind, wave and solar energy are not sufficiently advanced to make any great impact on our supply of power.
The Bill concentrates on putting water pipes for cooling purposes into the river Humber. The battle about whether there should be a power station is long past. Permission has been given. If Opposition Members seek to frustrate the Bill, they will simply deny the power stations the cooling water they need, and they will do so merely in an attempt to fight their corner for the coal industry. It is a bogus argument in that sense, because the battle has been won for two gas cycle turbine generators to be built, one for PowerGen and one for National Power. All that we are

discussing is whether we should allow water pipes to pass into the River Humber to take a small amount of water for cooling purposes.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of any studies on taking water out of the Humber, putting it through the generating plants as cooling water and returning it to the Humber? There are two power stations in my constituency, both coastal, one at the northern end and one at the southern. It is said that significant ecological changes are taking place in the North sea because of the discharge of water from those power stations. Because of the movement of water in an estuary, I imagine that the effect would be more significant in this instance than in the North sea.

Mr. Dickens: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point, and I will deal with it later.
As to the type of water extraction and discharges in the power stations to which I have referred, the extractions and discharges required for cooling would be on a significantly smaller scale than those already taking place at coastal and estuary major power station sites, such as those to which the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) has referred.
Cooling is required at power stations to condense steam which has been exhausted from steam turbines at low pressures. The cooling may be direct or indirect. For direct cooling, water is extracted from the source of cooling water, passed through condensers and returned to the source of the water. For indirect cooling, the water passing through the condensers is cooled by air, using cooling towers, and the same water is recirculated. Only the water which has evaporated in the cooling towers and the small quantity of purge water need to be replaced. Purge water is water taken from a recirculating cooling system and returned to the river in order to control the concentration of materials in the water. Normally, direct cooling would be used, but at Killingholme the distance from the water makes the capital cost of indirect cooling systems less than that of direct systems.
Combined cycle gas turbine power stations generate only one third of their electricity from the use of steam in steam turbines. The other two thirds is produced by generators driven directly from the gas turbines. In comparison, 100 per cent. of the electricity generation is from steam turbines in coal, oil or nuclear power stations.
The Killingholme development will use indirect cooling systems. The combination of indirect cooling and combined cycle gas turbine technology means that the requirements for cooling water are significantly reduced. In fact, it requires only 5 per cent. of that for direct cooling at existing power stations, like Fawley, Kingsnorth or Sizewell, per unit of electricity generated. That is important.
On the environmental aspects, the aspects of effluent discharges from power station cooling systems that require consideration are chlorine and temperature. There is no legislation relating to these two effluents since they are regulated by the National Rivers Authority in considering the term of the discharge licence.
Some form of biocide is usually necessary in cooling water circuits to deter the settlement and growth of


organisms, such as barnacles and mussels, and to control algae, slimes and bacteria. At present, chlorine is used in one form or another.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: The hon. Gentleman is getting very technical. I would appreciate it if he could help the poor lay Opposition Members. Will he explain the process involved with biocides, what they do and how they work?

Mr. Dickens: I will indeed—I shall be coming to that soon.
Since chlorine has been used for many years, its use is very well understood, except on the Labour Benches. It has the best balance of advantages compared with disadvantages.
The main disadvantage of any biocide, including chlorine, is that it must be applied to the entire water volume. Biocide dosing is carefully controlled and minimised for both environmental and cost reasons. Power stations therefore operate with chlorine at the limits of detection in the water discharge. The chlorine reacts chemically with organic materials throughout the cooling system and its concentration reduces as it reacts. As stated previously, the dose level is regulated so that it has virtually completely reacted and is only just detectable at discharge. In addition, the purge water discharge will be very rapidly and significantly diluted by river water at the point of discharge. The combination of low concentration, further continuing reaction and major dilution virtually eliminates traces of free chlorine at a very short distance from the discharge point. I was pleased to have the opportunity to explain that.

Mr. Hood: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for the explanation. I now understand a biocide and its use as clearly as mud.

Mr. Dickens: My hon. Friends understand it. That is why we are prepared to stay late to deal with the Bill when we could have rushed back to our constituencies.

Mr. Jack Thompson: rose——

Mr. Dickens: I want to make more progress before giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
The temperature of the water discharged will vary with ambient temperatures. The maximum temperature differential between the water discharge and the estuary will be 7 to 12 deg. C. That will be of interest to the hon. Member for Wansbeck, so I hope that he is listening carefully. The quantities of water discharged from the power stations will be very small compared with the flow of water in the estuary, and dilution effects very rapidly bring water temperatures down to background river levels. It has been found that the effects of heat gain from the sun can far exceed warming effects from cooling water discharges. That is exceptionally important.

Mr. Michael Brown: There is only one problem a bout that—in the Humber estuary, we are lucky if the sun ever shines.

Mr. Dickens: If we succeed with the Bill, I think that the sun will shine brightly.
At Fawley, where direct cooling is used with a traditional oil-fired power station in a particularly sensitive marine environment, there is no evidence that the

discharge of chlorinated warm water has had any adverse effect on the European Community-designated shellfish waters surrounding the discharge outfall.

Mr. Eric Illsley: The hon. Gentleman is making a number of interesting points. I should like him to go back to the application of biocides. Can he tell us more about the biocides in chlorine, how temperature-sensitive they will be, what effect dosages of biocide would have on wildlife in the Humber estuary, and what measures will be taken to prevent any such discharges?

Mr. Dickens: I am pleased that that point has been raised. That very point has been of great concern to some of the interested parties. Most of them examined closely the point about leakage which my hon. Friend has raised. I mean the hon. Gentleman, of course—I nearly called him my hon. Friend because we went to Japan together.
The interested parties consulted included Glanford borough council, Humberside county council, North Killingholme parish council, Anglian Water plc, the Electricity Council, Lindsey oil refinery, Shell UK, British Telecom—I do not know why that is in the list—the Department of the Environment, the Duchy of Lancaster, the local Members of Parliament and the European Parliament, the National Rivers Authority, the North Eastern Sea Fisheries, the port manager of Associated British Ports at Grimsby and the harbour master of Associated British Ports at Hull, British Rail's eastern region, Trinity House, the Crown Estate commissioners, Immingham town council, British Coal Corporation, Simon Storage Company Ltd., Conoco Ltd. and so on. I shall not detain the House by listing the others.
That list of interested parties demonstrates the care and sensitivity of the promoters of the Bill, National Power and PowerGen—the successors to the Central Electricity Generating Board—who have ensured that everyone is in harmony and understands what is intended. We have no complaints.

Mr. Terry Patchett: I am awfully impressed by the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the Bill. In what part of the Humber would he discharge the water?

Mr. Dickens: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman understands the pipework involved. If not, I will give him a talk on it.

Mr. Patchett: Right now?

Mr. Dickens: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to detain the House.
At the moment, entry into the Humber is being sought quite close inshore, just underneath the seabed. It is likely that each power station—hon. Members will be aware that we are talking about two power stations on adjacent sites—will use two pipes. That is what is required. The Bill, however, gives permission for 12 if others are required to deal with breakdowns.
The construction programme for the power stations is worthy of note as it reveals the rate of progress and when those power stations are expected to be operational. The power plant contract for the National Power station was placed on 6 July 1990. The preliminary work started on 2 January 1991 and the main site work is due to start on 1 August 1991. It is hoped that full commercial operation


will commence on 31 July 1993, which will mean that much more electricity is produced for the lucky people of the north-east.
The preliminary works contract and power station turnkey contract for the PowerGen station was placed on 1 February 1990. The preliminary works were completed on 13 June 1990 and the main site work started in September. It is hoped that the first module will be fully commissioned and its acceptance tests completed on 1 October 1992. The second module should be fully commissioned and its acceptance tests completed by 1 February 1993.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something suspect about organisations which make an application and receive permission to build two power stations then having to come to the House for permission to put the pipes in? If the House turns down the application for those pipes, what will happen to the power stations?

Mr. Dickens: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, because we are trying to replace an archaic permission that was given some time ago—a permission given in the event of an oil-fired power station on the same site. Tonight we are simply trying to ensure that those power stations have access to cooling water. It is a purely technical matter and no harm will be done to the Humber, the sea or local residents.
This Bill has been introduced because the promoters could not bring themselves to believe in a million years that some hon. Members would be so bigoted and entrenched for other reasons as to oppose the installation of the pipes. The promoters thought that their request was simple and straightforward. Hon. Members should please note that all we want is to give the people of the north-east and the rest of the country electricity. All we want is permission to put pipes into the Humber for cooling purposes. We shall achieve that today.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), and he certainly enlightened me on the technical aspects of the Bill. The sponsor, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), failed to reach such technical heights.
The Opposition intend to oppose all private Bills that seek to facilitate the generation of power until we have a national energy policy, which we need for the benefit of the entire country. If we leave the production of power to market forces, consumers will be held to ransom by the high charges that the power companies will want to impose. Now that the CEGB has been broken and privatised, it is all the more important to ensure that prices to the consumer are reasonable.
I do not believe that the two proposed power stations will benefit the country. I am at a loss to understand why the hon. Member for Stroud has sponsored the Bill. I should have thought that it would be easier for that hon. Member whose constituency is adjacent to the site to act as the sponsor, as he has local knowledge. Perhaps the promoters' experience with the hon. Member for Brigg

and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), however, made them a little reluctant to let him get his hands on another private Bill so soon.
We have been asked why we are seeking to go against local Labour-controlled authorities. I can understand why any local authority approached for planning permission for a power station grants such permission, given the number of jobs that that would create for local people. I can understand their keenness for those power stations. I cannot accept, however, that I have no right to express views contrary to those of my Labour colleagues, Conservative colleagues or anyone else. I have a right to my opinion and to express it, even if it is not accepted by others.
We are concerned about British Coal and the number of jobs left in that company. I have one pit left in my constituency—I believe that it is a long-lifer, if there is such a thing today. There are many jobs connected with the pit: likewise, the proposed power stations will generate ancillary jobs. I am not bothered about differences of opinion: all I believe is that there is a need for a national energy plan.
The Bill does not meet that need, so I cannot understand why companies should go to the great expense of building two power stations and then come to seek to promote a private Bill, which they should have done when they submitted the plans to the local authority and the Secretary of State. I can well understand the urgency of Conservative Members, the companies involved and the Private Bill Office in seeking to rush the Bill through to ensure that there is no hold-up in the erection of the power stations and the pipework that requires the water to ensure that both come on stream at the same time to start producing electricity.
As far as I am aware, there have not yet been any accurate forecasts of future energy demands. The forecasts always seem to go over the top. I remain to be convinced of the need for the additional generation.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Will my hon. Friend comment on the quality of management of the companies involved in promoting the Bill, bearing in mind the fact that they have commenced work on building power stations without having gained permission for the effluent pipes, so aply described by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens)? I also wonder about the quality of management of the companies that will import half their coal from foreign sources, when we have a record balance of payments deficit. Are not the Opposition right to question closely the Bill's merits?

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and he has made his argument in such a fashion that I cannot enrich it.
There is a question mark over the judgment of the people involved, who seek to erect power stations which they might not be able to use because they failed to submit plans to enable them to receive the necessary water. There is a need for the Opposition to continue to examine the issue in great depth, both here on the Floor of the House and, in detail, in Committee. As a point of order, I wonder whether the Bill is correct. I remember the gerrymandering that went on over the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, which the House approved only to find that it had a slight technical defect which went unnoticed until it reached the other place.
I listened carefully when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) introduced the Bill. He mentioned that it was also designed to construct lagoons. I tabled a question on 25 January 1990 to ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he intended to give planning permission to PowerGen and National Power to construct a lagoon to provide cooling water for the proposed combined cycle gas turbine developments at Killingholme, and if he would make a statement. The reply was:
If either company wishes to construct such a lagoon they will need to apply for the Secretary of State's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. When granting such a consent he may also give a direction that planning permission be deemed to be granted under section 90(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
No application for consent under section 36 to construct such a lagoon has been received."—[Official Report, 25 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 325.]
I was a little at a loss, because the hon. Member for Stroud said that we were merely talking about pipes to take water from the Humber, circulate it around the cold water towers and pump it back out. I do not accept that. There are some signs that lagoons will be built.
Unless I misunderstood or misheard the hon. Member for Stroud, he mentioned lagoons, so I asked him to give way. I do not doubt that the Hansard reporters have picked up the word "lagoons" mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. If we are talking about lagoons, that subject should be within the Bill, which should include the words "pipes and/or lagoons". I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could clarify that point.

Mr. Knapman: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I think that I said that I did not quite catch the final sentence of his intervention. If he mentioned lagoons, I did not realise it until now.
The application is for the intake and outlet pipes only. That is the Bill's whole purpose. As far as I am aware, no one involved with the Bill dreamed that there would be objections to it, because it is designed purely to allow pipes to and from the power stations. However, private Bills sometimes have an unpredictable course, and there are a number of other options, but the one proposed in the Bill is by far the best environmentally, commercially and in every other way. The Bill does not refer to a lagoon as such.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enlightening me, but I am sorry—once the Bill receives Royal Assent, the companies will not need to come back with another private Bill if they want to construct lagoons. They can simply go to the Secretary of State. If that is not the case, the hon. Gentleman can correct me, but I believe that the Bill authorises the Secretary of State to accept a further application from the companies without them having to resort to section 36 of the Electricity Act.

Mr. Knapman: The Bill is needed only because of the provisions of the Humber Conservancy Act 1905. If someone wanted to construct a 50-storey engineering block or a lagoon, he would have to go through the planning procedures in the normal way.

Mr. Redmond: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but if the Bill were to mention extraction from the Humber into lagoons or standby lagoons, that would be all right. However, the Bill is a cheat and is not truthful; hence my question to the Minister. I was not satisfied,

because I knew that discussions had taken place between the Minister and National Power, and it seemed appropriate to try to get the position clarified.
I wrote to National Power and received a letter dated 12 February 1991, which stated:
I refer to your letter to John Baker on the lagoon option at Killingholme Power Station. As he and a number of other Executive Directors are out of town at the moment, in connection with the flotation of National Power, he is unable to reply personally.
Ever since the inception of our Killingholme project we have considered various ways of securing the necessary cooling water in the light of the 1905 Humber Conservancy Act. Naturally, we have discussed our ideas with a number of interested parties, including officials of the Department of Energy. We have concluded that the proposals put forward in the Killingholme Bill represent our preferred solution and we remain fully committed to … this.
The hon. Member for Stroud says that the issue of lagoons never entered the argument. The Bill clears many of the obstacles and gives the Secretary of State carte blanche to grant all sorts of planning permission. There is no point in anyone trying to kid me. There is connivance between the two power companies and the Department of Energy. If everything is straight and above board, why can they not come forward and state their precise intentions?
It is right for the Opposition to look in great detail at proposed legislation and to lift stones, because we may find something nasty underneath. We have a right to examine the Bill in depth if we feel that that is necessary. The sponsor is being less than honest in not presenting all the facts about short and long-term plans. Because people are economical with the truth, we shall have to wait a long time for evidence to emerge. Of course, by then it will be too late; when the Bill becomes an Act, we will not be able to touch it, as it has received all sorts of approval. This is the only opportunity that we have to look in depth at the Bill.
Is there a plan to build lagoons? If so, why has that not been mentioned? I am sure that the hon. Member for Stroud will apologise for misleading the House when such lagoons are eventually built. The hon. Gentleman lectured us about pipes and pollution. It was far too much for me to take in, and I should be grateful for a repeat of his speech.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: The hon. Gentleman advances an interesting argument about lagoons. Where in the Bill is there mention of a lagoon? I have looked, and I cannot find one. He says that, although a lagoon is not mentioned in the Bill, one will be built, because the Bill gives permission for something.

Mr. Redmond: I said at the start of my speech that lagoons were not mentioned in the Bill. However, I know that they were discussed and will continue to be discussed for some time. Are the companies being deliberately misleading or deceitful about that matter, which obviously has implications for the environment and for the Humber Conservancy Act 1905? Perhaps, if lagoons had been mentioned in the Bill, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other conservation bodies would have taken a greater interest, made objections and organised petitions. Lagoons have been mentioned in private. Any hon. Member seeking confirmation of that should ask the hon. Member for Stroud whether lagoons were discussed.
The letter that I read to the House shows that pipes are the preferred option, but it does not state categorically that there will be no lagoons. I am sorry to labour the point.
The Bill permits the abstraction of water from the Humber, and it will allow the Secretary of State to take decisions without having to come to the House. I am willing to allow the hon. Member for Stroud to give a categorical assurance that no lagoons will ever be constructed on that site. Obviously the hon. Gentleman cannot give that assurance. I shall move on.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a good idea.

Mr. Redmond: I did not intend to be at cross purposes with such a charming lady, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are extremely tolerant and understanding. However, because of the leeway extended to Conservative Members, I sought to develop the point and seek clarification. It is clear that I am right and that the Bill's promoter is wrong.
Pipes will take water from the Humber and that water will circulate in the system and then be pumped out. We are told by the experts on pipes, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth, that that will cause very little pollution in the Humber. I do not know what pollutants the water will pick up on its travels round the cooling system. Will there be some mechanism to extract pollutants before the water is returned to the Humber?

Mr. Dickens: I am certainly not an expert on pipes. I asked for some briefing material before I came to the Chamber. From the briefing material that I have read and my study of the subject, I know that the issue of lagoons does not arise. Containers or catchment areas are not needed. In my speech, which the hon. Gentleman will be able to read and study tomorrow at length, I dealt with the imperfections and materials in the water. They are taken care of because there must be a clean system.

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Gentleman is too modest. His speech showed that he was articulate and had a good knowledge of the subject. What he said about pollution raised the question whether filters would remove pollutants before the water was discharged. It was said that there would be some pollution, but that, because of the controlled way in which the water was released, pollutants would be slowly dispersed in the Humber, and tidal waters would carry them far away.
There is bound to be pollution. A power station somewhere in the north causes pollution about which the Irish complain.

Mr. Dickens: Perhaps I can clarify this point. The water released into the Humber would be no more polluted than the bath water in which we immerse ourselves—warm, chlorinated water. Indeed, bath water is soapy, and that is dangerous.

Mr. Redmond: There would be pollution, and the effect would be long-term. Only after many years have we begun to understand the effects of pollution on the ecosystem. I assume that the water being discharged would be warm. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will comment on the effects on mussels and other wildlife. It is necessary that the extent of the pollution be understood, but no one has asked any questions about its nature. Obviously it is necessary to be wary. If the Bill goes to Committee, the Committee members will want to examine this matter very closely.
Then there is the question of sludge. It is necessary that water discharged into the Humber be free of silt.

Mr. Jack Thompson: I have not heard any answers to the questions that my hon. Friend is asking. We have not heard whether the water would be discharged by gravity or by means of a pumping system. The discharge of water under pressure has significant safety implications. Eddies are created, and the estuary bed is disturbed.

Mr. Redmond: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The promoters of the Bill have made no reference to this matter. I assume that water would be discharged under pressure. Of course, I cannot be sure about that.[Interruption.] Apparently it would be.

Mr. Michael Brown: rose——

Mr. Redmond: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes wishes to intervene. On a number of occasions when I sought to intervene, he refused to give way. However, as I am a gentleman, I shall give way.

Mr. Michael Brown: Of course, I am only a secondary modern schoolboy and probably did not have as good an education as the hon. Gentleman. I shall have to be trained in these matters.
If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about pollution, let me tell him that this power station would emit virtually no sulphur dioxide and about half the carbon dioxide and one quarter of the nitrogen oxide emitted by the power stations that I drive past when I am going round the Ferrybridge area.

Mr. Redmond: Pollutants of that sort will be produced from South African coal. But I shall not be diverted by the hon. Gentleman.
We could argue about whether there are solutions. The Government ought to put their hands in their pocket and provide the necessary cash to help eliminate the problems. The technology needed for their elimination is there; what is needed is the cash. We can find billions of pounds to wage war overseas, but the war against pollution has to take a back seat. It is right that we should be concerned about pollution.
Clause 13(2)(a) says:
the Secretary of State may by notice in writing require the appropriate company".
It should be noted that the word is "may"; it ought to be "will". Because of such wording, one has grave reservations about whether the Bill should be given a Second Reading. I hope that, in spite of the three-line Whip, Conservative Members will see the need to reject it.
Clause 12(4) refers to "21 days' notice in writing". Throughout the Bill there are variations—seven days, 21 days, 28 days. There really ought to be some consistency. Perhaps the period provided throughout the Bill should be 28 days. I hope that the promoters will take note of that point.
I am also unhappy about clause 14, which is entitled "Provisions against danger to navigation". There have been difficulties, but I think that the situation is picking up, and I hope that it will go from strength to strength. The more ships that use the Humber, the greater will be the danger to navigation. One must take into consideration any additional obstacles created by this Bill. We know only too well how serious can be the pollution caused by damage to a ship.
Clause 16 says:


The Secretary of State may at any time,"—
again "may", where the word should be "will"—
if he deems it expedient, order a survey … and any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in any such survey or examination shall be recoverable from the appropriate company.
My understanding is that the Secretary of State would be able to say to a company, "The survey cost £5,000. I now require that amount from you." That is as it should be. It will enable the Secretary of State to monitor activities, and also to ensure that the companies are sticking to the terms of the Bill.
Clause 16(2) states:
The rivers authority may at their own expense at any time carry out a survey".
I should have thought that, if the companies were genuinely concerned about pollution, they would be only too pleased to pay the rivers authority any necessary costs to ensure that everything is above board and complies with pollution laws.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I felt that it was important to express my anxiety about the omissions from the Bill. I am also concerned about private Bills that give carte blanche authority to private companies compulsorily to purchase land. I do not believe that any private company should have that right, or the right to extinguish rights of way. People have enjoyed rights of way for many years, yet companies, in their pursuit of profit, want to take them away.
The Bill will go to Committee, where we hope that it will be considered in even greater depth, line by line. I hope that the Committee will check and double-check. Our experience of private Bills is that there is some kidology, some gerrymandering and some deliberate misleading of the House through the omission of the true intentions behind a Bill.

Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend's speech is informative. As he has reached only clause 16, I plead with him not to sit down and miss out the remaining 21 clauses. I would much appreciate it if he would continue with his speech and give us the benefit of his wisdom.

Mr. Redmond: I would do so, but I am gasping for a pint. I also have a dry throat.

Mr. Illsley: Perhaps I could give my hon. Friend the opportunity to catch his breath. Before he ends his excellent speech, will he elaborate on his point about the Bill being misleading? We owe a debt to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) because he pointed out the companies' intentions about biocides, the injection of chlorine and so on. My efforts with the "Oxford English Dictionary" failed to reveal any such word as "biocide". Although we obviously 'Understand the meaning behind the hon. Gentleman's speech, we cannot find any definition of "biocide" or, indeed, any examples of "biocides" by their chemical names. Should not the promoters of the Bill come to the House with more detail of the chemicals that the companies intend to put through the pipes, the permission for which we are discussing tonight?

Mr. Redmond: I regret that I am not as conversant as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth with all the technical details, so I am unable to answer my hon. Friend's questions. Perhaps the proceedings should be stopped to enable the sponsors of the Bill to clarify those points. My hon. Friend desperately wants to know the

answers. If we can be given that information, it is possible that the Bill could then sweep through unopposed. I suspect that, because of the half-truths in the Bill, we will not know the whole truth for a number of years. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would like to stop the debate to allow clarification of those points, I should be only too happy to comply with your ruling.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is an invitation that I must refuse to accept.

Mr. Redmond: I am sure that that is why my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) did not put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I could make many, many more points that would call into question the true intent of the Bill. The Committee must go through it line by line. It must cross-examine the companies' representatives who, I am sure, are listening to the debate. The Committee must ensure that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is presented to the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): When this matter was last debated on 14 January, I gave my view about the Bill, and nothing has happened since then to change it. However, for the sake of completeness, I shall summarise my position. In January and April last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his consent and investment approvals for two power stations of the combined cycle gas turbine design. Having given those consents, after due consideration, it would be perverse if my right hon. Friend or I did not support a Bill seeking to provide the necessary ancillary works, which in this case are the cooling water works in the River Humber.
The projects have been exhaustively considered by my right hon. Friend and also by the planning authority, as we have heard. The thinking behind the Bill had been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), and we have had a most accomplished technical exposition from my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). In the light of all those considerations, I am happy to support the Bill in its present form.

Mr. Kevin Barron: When we last debated the Bill, the Minister spoke from the Dispatch Box for only 10 minutes and failed to answer a number of questions that I and my hon. Friends asked. In view of his even briefer time it the Dispatch Box today, I invite him to intervene during my speech to answer my questions.
The Bill seeks planning permission to complete a multi-million pound project, much of which has already been built. If I had been spending such large amounts of money, I would have done my homework beforehand to ensure that the money was being spent wisely.
When the Bill was debated on Monday 14 January, I said that the Opposition were reluctant to give their approval to the Bill without the House having given due consideration to the implications of increasing the gas generation of electricity.
Contrary to the way in which some Tory Members misrepresented Opposition policy that night, our reluctance is based on Britain's need for a strategy for


electricity generation rather than a hotch-potch of new power stations built to suit private generators or the two generating companies that we are told are now in fierce competition with each other.
Once again tonight, the private Bill procedure is being used to make major strategic energy decisions which should properly be made by Ministers of the Department of Energy—a criticism which the Government have again declined to answer tonight.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) was the sponsor of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. We have never been told why he is not sponsoring this Bill. The Committee which considered the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill expressed its concern about being asked to make what were intrinsically policy decisions which should have been made by the Government. Its comments in its special report could equally be applied to this Bill. The Committee said that it was unanimous that the arguments raised complex matters of energy and trade policy for which the Government must take ultimate responsibility. The Government have still to explain their policy on electricity generation.
However, we have heard about some of the casualties. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) spoke briefly but forcefully about the likely casualties of the change in electricity generation that has taken place during the past two years under the Government. The Bill may not be directly related to that issue, but no one who is listening to the debate or who reads it subsequently should be surprised at the attitudes of my hon. Friends to private Bills promoted by these two companies.
Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the Committee which considered the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill—and the House when the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House—were deceived. This Bill may not be directly related to the earlier one, but no one should be surprised at people's attitudes in relation to this Bill.

Mr. Michael Brown: Do the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) represent the views of the hon. Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who are directly affected by the Bill? It is interesting that they are not here.

Mr. Barron: Hon. Members can take part in debates in the House if they so wish. My hon. Friends the Members for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) have not contacted me on the issues involved in the Bill but, like most hon. Members, they are against deception, and that is what I believe took place in the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
I accept that there is a case to be made for burning gas in certain circumstances, based on efficiency and cleanliness. The environment is important and it should not be ignored. Contrary to what some Tory Members suggest during debates on the coal industry, for example, the Opposition are concerned about the environment, but cleanliness and efficiency are not the only criteria, nor do they override other considerations that we as legislators should take into account.
Applications for the construction of gas generating stations should be based on a range of criteria, such as the efficiency of energy conservation, the use of power generated and the source of the gas.
There can be no question but that we would support the use of gas if it was for combined heat and power development, which would achieve the highest practical efficiency. The short-term advantages of using gas purely for electricity generation are outweighed by the long-term considerations.

Mr. Hood: Some take the view that gas provides a cheap form of electricity generation, and that if we go for gas turbines, everything will be hunky-dory. I remind my hon. Friend of the current situation in rural communities, which rely greatly on bottled gas—the price of which has increased by more than 35 per cent. since the invasion of Kuwait on 2 August. Suppliers of bottled gas have been able to rip off rural communities because of their market monopoly. What guarantee is there that gas turbine generators will not do the same?

Mr. Barron: The worldwide tie-in of gas prices to oil prices ought to bother all right hon. and hon. Members, and the consequences of events in the middle east should concern everyone in the country.
The Secretary of State seems to hand out permission for new gas power stations without giving any thought to their location. If they must be built, it would make more sense for them to be built in parts of the country where there is little or no power generation, rather than in areas that have a large share of power stations—some of which could be displaced.
Over the years, we have frequently argued about the building of power stations in south-east England, which has a major need for electricity. The Government have an involvement because of the need to extend planning permission through the private Bill procedure. Other areas are denied such permission, to right the imbalance in electricity generating capacity.

Mr. Knapman: Has the hon. Gentleman contacted the Labour-controlled Humberside county council to discover why it is in favour of the Bill?

Mr. Barron: I have not, nor has the council contacted me about my Second Reading speech or my actions in that connection. I should be more than happy, however, to receive representatives of that authority—as I did in respect of the legislation involving a new coal terminal that involved the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes.
Gas is a premium fuel, and to burn it to produce electricity is wasteful. The United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association's evidence to the Cullen inquiry estimated in mid-1988 that there were 25 gasfields in production or under development and that another 35 had been discovered but were not yet developed. The report stated:
gas production which was currently about 4,500 million cubic feet per day, was projected to halve by the end of this century.
A recent report from the stockbrokers Kleinwort Benson entitled "Natural Gas to set Europe alight" reported:
substantial new gas will need to be contracted by British Gas from 1995 onwards—but even if gas from new fields in the North Sea is contracted by 1998–2000, there will still be a deficiency between supply and demand.


That has major implications for electricity generation and for all the consumers who are supplied from British Gas mains. The unchecked development of gas generating stations will increase our dependence on imported fuel. Last year, we imported gas to the value of more than 40 million tonnes of coal equivalent. That is a massive fuel trade deficit for a country that is so energy-rich.
The Kleinwort Benson report predicted that increases in European demand will be met in the first instance by the European group of 10, which it describes as a secretive and anonymous group of gas producers who are
top class, admittedly monopolistic bodies who efficiently control production, transmission, and distribution of natural gas.
That is an obvious extension of the free market that the Conservatives have been forcing down our throats for the past 11 years. According to the report, after 1997, the percentage of imported gas from non-European countries will increase markedly. Surely it is the height of irresponsibility to encourage the dash for gas for electricity generation that we have seen in the past two years.
During our previous debate on the Bill, I mentioned press reports that the two new generating companies had gas contracts with the Caister field, which is scheduled to last for only another seven or eight years. I asked where the gas would come from to supply the turbines after that, but I received no answer—as we have received no answer from the Minister tonight. I ask the question again: will the gas come from the Gulf or the Soviet Union? They are hardly stable, secure sources of supply in current circumstances or, perhaps, for a long time to come.

Mr. Dickens: Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. The Select Committee on Energy conducted an extensive, in-depth study of gas depletion. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is doing himself justice by arguing that gas supplies will not be sufficient. Let me set his mind at rest. If he gets a copy of our report from the Library, he will find that his argument is bogus.

Mr. Barron: I do not agree. If the hon. Gentleman himself gets a copy of the report from the Library, he will seee that my name is attached to the gas depletion policy contained in it, because I was a member of the Select Committee that drew it up. If he was present and listening to what was said then, he could be in no doubt that, by the turn of the century, Britain, and western Europe as we now know it, will be dependent on gas from eastern Europe as we now know it. That was one of our more simple findings. I need no lessons from the hon. Gentleman. He had better have another look at exactly what the report says.
Our competitors must think that the Government are crazy to squander our resources in this fashion. If honesty ever overcomes the Department of Energy arid its Minister, I believe that they will accept that. Britain should not depend on imported fuel—it should not depend on the undependable. The proper use of our own resources would prevent that.
I want to say something to the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), not about his lengthy discourse about the finer aspects of planning applications, but about his comments on security of supply. I agree with him. I think that security of supply is vital. Every electricity user will have put it at the top of his list. A couple of weeks ago, I visited a country that is experiencing an energy crisis. The electricity went off every four hours. The crisis has devastated the country's

economy. It imports fuel, and until it can again establish its own source of supply, its economy will go from bad to worse.
Security of supply, however, does not necessarily mean diversity of supply. No-one has ever asked me whether the light bulb at home is lit by nuclear fuel, oil, coal or gas—perhaps methane from a land waste disposal site. People are much more concerned about security than about diversity, as they have every right to be. We, as legislators, should ensure that times of change do not interfere with our ability to keep the electricity burning.
I warn the House that, before we merrily give permission for new generating stations, we must have the opportunity to debate the Government's strategy for—or should I say their lack of interest in?—the careful management of the country's resources. We will not have to face the difficulties—nor will the Tories, because there will not be a Conservative Government in two years' time—but generations to come may have to pay for the decision to import energy.

Mr. Michael Brown: This debate is very simple, and the issue is straightforward for my constituency. There is no reason why the House should not give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
The power stations are being constructed not as a result of powers required from the House, but as a result of powers that were granted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) said, some time ago by the Labour-controlled Humberside county council and Glanford borough council.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, it is significant that the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who are assiduous in representing constituency interests, are absent from the debate. If they were concerned about the Bill, they would have been present today. Their absence shows clearly that they will be hoping and praying for the Bill to make progress. They will be aware that the construction companies will create much employment in the area and many members of the work force will come from Grimsby, Scunthorpe and from my constituency. The fact that those two hon. Members are not present today shows that they do not share the view of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) or his hon. Friends. They will be concerned to learn that there is a difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Rother Valley and the Labour-controlled county council which they loyally support.

Mr. Hood: Why did the sponsors not have a local Member of Parliament to promote the Bill? Why did they go all the way to Gloucestershire?

Mr. Brown: The Bill's sponsors, National Power and PowerGen, are national companies. They may have decided that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud is an excellent advocate—something that he has shown today. I cannot compete with him when it comes to advocacy and persuasion in this House. The sponsors choose wisely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will be the toast of the people of south Humberside for what he has done for my constituency today. I give him full marks for the superb way in which he introduced the Bill. He will be championed by my constituents as well as by the


constituents of the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I confidently predict that my hon. Friend will receive hundreds of letters from grateful constituents. On behalf of my constituents, I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for the powerful case that he made today in favour of the Bill.
As I have said before, the Labour party has something against the people of Brigg and Cleethorpes. I do not know why that should be. The Labour party consistently opposes any form of industrial expansion, whether it be docks one year, power stations the next, or construction of pipes the following year. There is something about south Humberside that the Labour party does not like. The Labour party does not want the people of south Humberside to enjoy the benefits of industrial expansion.
Just before the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill reached the statute book, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) warned me in the House—this is in the official record—that if a Labour Government are re-elected——

Mr. Alan Meale: When.

Mr. Brown: All right—when a Labour Government are re-elected, said the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, if there is any construction with regard to the Associated British Ports development, the Labour Government will scrap it. Are the Opposition of that view? I want to know whether the Labour candidate who is to stand in my constituency in the next general election—councillor Ian Cawsey, a delightful young man—will have to say that a vote for the Labour party to sit on the Government side of the House will mean a Government who will knock down, destroy and vandalise the power stations in Luddite way, just as they are committed to knock down the dock development.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw did the Labour party no service. The poor chap who is the Labour candidate, Councillor Ian Cawsey, has a millstone around his neck because the Labour party are saying that, if it is ever in government, it will knock down the dock development which it opposed when in opposition. If the Bill is passed into law before the next general election, will the hon. Member for Rother Valley as Energy Minister introduce legislation to knock down gas-fired power stations?

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Councillor Ian Cawsey when we debated the matter on 14 January. He says that Councillor Cawsey will have another millstone around his neck. He went on to say that the Labour party wants to kill jobs at Killingholme after the power stations are built. I invite him to withdraw that, because I did not say it then and I have not said it today—and nor have any of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Brown: Before I withdraw anything that I have said, perhaps we can get the matter straight. I will withdraw what I said if the hon. Gentleman will confirm that he is saying that, in the event of the Bill passing into law and the power stations coming on stream, a Labour Government would not knock down the power stations and abandon the principles in the Bill. If that is what he is saying and I have misinterpreted him, of course I will gladly withdraw.
But if the hon. Gentleman did not say that, why are we wasting our time today? The hon. Gentleman is implying

that, if the Labour party was in power, it will accept the legislation that we have passed, acknowledge that the power stations were a reality, that the gas would be taken out of the North sea and the water out of the River Humber; but his hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is recorded as saying in relation to the Associated British Ports Act 1990 that a Labour Government would stop construction and end the project.

Mr. Barron: When we debated the revival motion, and again today, I said that the Labour party was reluctant to approve the Bill without the House having considered the implications of increasing gas generation. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, I do not know what he does understand. I invite him to withdraw. In the previous debate, he said that we were out to kill the project.

Mr. Brown: So there we have it—fair enough. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, if the Labour party wins the next general election, it will consider the legislation and all the arguments that we have deployed—[Interruption.] He added the qualification about being satisfied. However, as I said, if that is the case, I shall gladly withdraw. The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) and his hon. Friends do not want any gas-fired power stations on South Humberside in any circumstances.

Mr. Lofthouse: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman was not listening to my speech. At no time have I said that. At no time would I agree that, when legislation has passed through the House, we would do anything to alter it, apart from through the normal democratic procedures of the House, or decide on the legislation for the period of the life of that Government. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to misquote me again. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. At no time did I even remotely suggest what Labour's policy would be on this issue. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw what he said.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has said that at no time in his speech did he suggest what Labour's policy would be. I do not know what he is saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am simply saying that, if the hon. Gentleman is saying that there are no circumstances in which the Bill would be repealed once it is an Act—[Interruption.] Is that what he is saying? I thought that the whole purpose of an election was that one Government could repeal the legislation of the previous Government. If the Labour party has no intention of repealing any of the legislation passed by the Conservative party during this or the previous two Parliaments, I suppose that we can view the prospect of a Labour Government with some hope.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Steady on.

Mr. Brown: Indeed.
Opposition Members seem to be protesting tonight that they want to see the Bill on the statute book—[Interruption.] Well, I believe that that is what they are fumbling their way towards. They are trying to say, "Look, we have been making speeches in which we have pretended to be against the Bill, but underneath all our threadbare arguments—of course, we really have no arguments—we recognise that gas-fired power stations are


the way of the future. We recognise the power of the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Stroud"——

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could draw to the attention of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) the fact that he should not turn his back on the Chair, and especially not on a lady.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can frequently see the pleasant face of the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Brown: May I reassure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, even more frequently, I can see your pleasant face when you are in the Chair? Indeed, it is always a great privilege to face you when you are in the Chair.
Opposition Members seem to have been fumbling their way towards saying——

Mr. Illsley: rose——

Mr. Brown: I should like to develop this point, but I will consider giving way in a moment.
Opposition Members seem to have been belatedly fumbling their way to saying, "We have been making threadbare speeches this evening, but we realise that we have no argument whatsoever for opposing gas-fired power stations. We recognise that they are far cleaner than coal-fired power stations. We recognise that they emit only half the carbon dioxide of equivalent coal-fired power stations, virtually no sulphur dioxide, and only one quarter of the nitrogen oxide emissions of an equivalent coal-fired power station. Therefore, on environmental grounds, we recognise that there is no way in which we can stand in the way of such power station developments." If that is what Opposition Members are saying, I do not understand why they are likely to seek to divide the House at the end of the debate.

Mr. Meale: rose——

Mr. Malcolm Moss: rose——

Mr. Brown: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss).

Mr. Moss: Does my hon. Friend think that Opposition Members might also take on board the fact that generating electricity from gas costs about 2·5p per kWh, compared with coal which costs between 3p and 3·5p per kWh?

Mr. Brown: It was clear from the Opposition's protestations earlier in my speech that, if the Bill is enacted, there is no way in which a Labour Government would seek to repeal it. Clearly, one reason for that is the one outlined by my hon. Friend. Gas is one of the cheapest ways of generating electricity. The hon. Member for Rother Valley has said that the general public do not concern themselves with the manner in which electricity is provided, but I know that, when they receive their electricity bills, the general public do concern themselves with the manner in which the electricity is passed through the electric lights in their houses. I have received many letters from constituents who are worried at their high

electricity bills. Even Opposition Members know that there is the prospect of lower electricity bills with gas power generation.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is sitting next to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), has shares in one of the electricity companies. Will the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes join us in condemning the proposed 13 per cent. increase in electricity shares in the privatised companies in an attempt to protect his constituents, just as we wish to protect ours?

Mr. Brown: If the Bill becomes law as quickly as possible, it may be possible to reduce electricity charges more quickly. I hope that many private Bills of this nature will come before the House in the next Parliament, whether there is a Conservative or a Labour Government, because the way to bring down electricity costs is to ensure that we do not pay the unnecessarily high costs of electricity generation that we pay now. Gas-fired power stations are one of the most environmentally beneficial ways of producing electricity. They are also——

Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brown: I will just finish this sentence and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman—I am sorry that I forgot my promise to give way.
Gas-powered electricity generation will in the long run be extremely cost-effective for the consumer.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that Opposition Members opposed jobs being created in South Humberside. Why did he oppose the Nirex depository being sited in his area? That would have brought jobs to his constituency. How can he accuse us of not wanting to bring jobs to the area?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman clearly did not attend any of the interminable debates between 1984 and 1987 when I was constantly in the House speaking on the nuclear waste issue. If he had been in the House and had listened to the reasons that I gave for opposing a nuclear waste site in my constituency, he would know that I said that no jobs would accrue to my constituents. I also drew attention to the fact that the site which Nirex, the subsidiary company of the Central Electricity Generating Board, wanted to use in 1986–87 had been intended for a power station ever since the end of the war in 1945.
During our battles against Nirex in 1985–86 and 1987, the fundamental basis of my argument was that the site had always been reserved for a power station. Indeed, in 1972, there was a proposal to build an oil-fired power station. In 1972, a Bill was brought before the House to provide the powers to build it. I opposed the use of the site as a dump for nuclear waste, because it was intended for a power station.
It is as a result of my winning the battle against the nuclear waste dump that this private Bill is before the House today. But for my victory on that issue in 1986, we should not have the Bill. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) should refer to the Hansard reports of those debates and examine the arguments that I deployed.

Mr. Meale: Talking of consistency, perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who has just explained why people should support the construction of a gas-fired power station, will


tell the House why he supported the construction of a private port in his constituency to import coal from abroad.

Mr. Brown: It just shows that I always put the consumer first. I am concerned ultimately about competition. My constituency will be available for people to bring their wares through the port of Immingham. My constituency has a wide variety of industry. We have an oil refinery and a large port and now we are to have two power stations. My constituency is in the vanguard of producing alternatives for the benefit of the consumer in the energy business. Customers can look to Brigg and Cleethorpes and see electricity, gas, power stations and the Conoco oil refinery. My constituency offers a choice to consumers of various ways of generating energy and power. I commend the Bill to the House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will be the toast of my constituents for the way in which he presented it.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) reminds me of Dickens's Artful Dodger; every time he is asked a question, he dodges it. He always seems to be ungracious; when it is pointed out that he has referred to things that have not been said, he does not have the courtesy to withdraw. His speech was practically verbatim the speech he made last time. He will have to get a speech writer, because he has run out of ideas on what to say in debates.
In the preamble, the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) talked much sense. For example, he said that we should be concerned about security of supply. I think he also mentioned concern for our children and grandchildren. When he was giving his discourse on when a pipe is not a pipe, he reminded me of an experience I had when I was in Seattle to give a lecture on alternative sources of energy.
I cannot remember all the details, but before I gave my lecture, a young Congressman spoke to the packed audience. He said that he was very busy as a Congressman and that he had to have a speech writer, but that there were dangers in having a speech writer. He described to the audience what had happened to another Congressman.
As that Congressman went on to the platform to address a meeting, a speech was thrust into his hands. He proceeded to read it. It was an appeal to the electors which went something like this, "Vote for me and I will reduce taxation on motor cars and petrol; vote for me and education will be entirely free; vote for me and pensions will be doubled or trebled." He came to the end of the page and turned to the next page where it said, "Now let me explain how I am going to pay for it all." Underneath it said, "You sonofabitch, I found out that you have been seeing my wife. Explain it all yourself."
The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth delivered his speech with good humour. I tried to explain to him that there is always a danger when one is delivering a written speech.

Mr. Dickens: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind things that he has said about my speech. I was careful to give credit to Labour Members for their deeply held views on and support for the coal industry. I think I

also said that I stand square with them in their support of the coal industry. The promoters of the Bill are also very committed to the British coal industry. The hon. Gentleman must not lose sight of that.

Mr. Eadie: I am not trying to be critical of the hon. Gentleman in any way. He has made many comments in the House with which I disagree, but I know that he has been very supportive of many aspects of the coal industry. I hope that he will not take offence. I did not think that, particularly in his preamble, he was offensive to me or my hon. Friends or about the coal industry. It is important to examine the hon. Gentleman's preamble, because, when talking about security of supply, we must consider energy provision.
I know that the Bill will be debated at length in Committee, but when it first appeared, mistakes were made. I do not have the time to go into them now, and the House would not want to listen. Since the first appearance of the Bill, however, massive changes have occurred relating to energy provision. For example, the Gulf war—I do not want to go into that now—has made an impact on that provision.
The use of gas for electricity power generation is irresponsible—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) about that. We do not have enough indigenous gas to meet our needs; we must import it.
I know that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth supports the coal industry. When we talk about energy provision a la security of supply, we are fortunate, because we have enormous supplies of indigenous coal. In that case, should we be considering security of supply? I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to ensure that we have safe, adequate supplies of energy. I have often addressed the House on the importance of having an indigenous provision of energy. That means everything to us, because, if we do not have energy provision, we shall die. It is of crucial importance.
We are entitled to scrutinise the Bill carefully. My only concern is that many of my hon. Friends who want to speak will not have the opportunity to do so before someone shouts for a vote at 10 o'clock. I do not believe that that does us damage, but, should it happen, it greatly damages Parliament, because one of the criticisms of this place is that we do not spend enough time debating legislation. I do not minimise the importance of this debate, as we are talking about something that sustains life.
When I was considering what to say in this debate, I recalled what Dr. Ernst Schumacher, the extremely talented German chief economic adviser to the National Coal Board from 1950 to 1970 said on pit closures. It is well worth remembering how he described the policy of closing mines that had not been exhausted—my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford has already described that policy as one of vandalism and irresponsibility. Dr. Schumacher said:
It is a policy of doubtful wisdom and questionable morality for this generation to take all the best resources and leave for its children only the worst. But surely it is a criminal policy if, in addition, we wilfully sterilise, abandon, and thereby ruin such relatively inferior resources as we ourselves have opened up, but do not care to utilise. This is like the spiteful burglar who does not merely pinch the valuables but in addition, destroys everything he cannot take".
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford mentioned the tremendous amount of investment that the


Government have made. No one can argue about that, but as quickly as they invest, they destroy. Nowadays, comparatively new pits are closed, which means that the investment is, to some extent, a fraud on the nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) will know that, at present, I am battling for the reopening of Monktonhall colliery, which is mothballed, is not closed and contains millions of tonnes of coal. The local authorities have completed a study and produced an argument to show how it could be viable. I regret that they have had trouble meeting Ministers or the chairman of British Coal to discuss the plan, which was drawn up by independent consultants. I am sure that the House will agree that it would be difficult to make a more eloquent critique of the Government's present policy, not only on coal but on energy provision, than the words of Ernst Schumacher, whom I quoted earlier.
During the debate, figures have been bandied about on the provision of natural gas. It is generally conceded t hat its provision is limited. I hope, if I have time, to come to the issue of price, which was quoted by Conservative Members to further the Bill's Second Reading. I wish to introduce into the debate a western European, rather than merely a British, dimension, because that is relevant to us today.
The war we are waging in the Gulf involves a coalition of forces. One hopes that there will be a coalition of forces and forms of collective security to preserve the peace. But if we talk about collective security in relation to defence and war, we should talk about it in relation to energy provision. There is nothing inconsistent in that.
Western Europe has 31 years of proven natural gas reserves at the 1989 production rate, although half the reserves are held by non-EC countries such as Norway. Western Europe's proven oil reserves are much smaller—only 13 years at current production rates, with Norway holding half of them. The preliminary remarks of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth were valuable, because he too has been thinking about that dimension. The world reserves of gas and oil are only 55 years and 44 years respectively. The House should use those figures when talking about security of supply and energy provision for our people. The EC probably has a minimum of 200 years coal reserves at current production rates. That is a viable insurance policy as oil and gas run out. In the EC, there are hundreds of years of technically recoverable reserves of coal.
Coal is probably the most complex of our hydrocarbon resources, it can be converted into many petroleum products and substitute natural gas. That will become necessary in the early part of the next century. When I was a Minister, I was proud to sign an agreement with Sir Derek Ezra, then the chairman of the National Coal Board, to set up three pilot plants to make oil from coal. Different systems were used, but I shall not bore the House with the details. We abuse our scientists far too much because Britain is good at technology. We are an inventive nation. We decided that the best of the three pilot projects would be examined to see if it was commercially viable.
I am sorry to say that the 1979 general election intervened. My successor said that that was the right way to deal with science and technology, but, despite a promise that the projects would carry on, I am afraid that they were buried, because the Government are anti-science and anti-technology. I am sorry to say that, because such an attitude affects the whole nation and in future may affect its wealth.
A rapidly declining coal industry cannot sustain the level of research and development that is needed to prove new technologies of coal liquefaction and gasification. The coal industry continues to decline, and we ruthlessly close pits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford has said, when a pit is closed, there is no way of regaining access to that God-given wealth. How can we develop the new technologies when we are destroying our indigenous capacity to produce coal?

Mr. Jack Thompson: In areas such as mine, and on the eastern coast of Scotland where the mines extend under the North sea, closed mines are certainly written off, because there is no way in which one can gain access to them. That is because the North sea has flooded the workings and the cost of getting back at those reserves would be prohibitive.

Mr. Eadie: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I know his area well. There was talk in his area about gas and oil. The coalfield in his constituency is very old, and I had a suspicion that all the coal had not been worked. I proposed a working party to examine my hon. Friend's coalfield, because we had discovered from examinations that in many areas there is sometimes more coal than was ever mined. It was possible to discover that because North sea oil exploration has introduced new seismic studies. I do not know whether that applies to my hon. Friend's area, but I had proposed that a working party carry out an examination of that area. I believe that that is the function of Government. After all, as I said earlier, we are talking about wealth.
In recent years, Britain has been the only net exporter of energy in the EC. In 1988, United Kingdom primary energy production accounted for 39 per cent. of all the primary energy produced in the EC. United Kingdom coal accounted for 10 per cent. of the total. This was one of the few secure long-term resources of the Community.
We must look at this matter in a European and global context. When I was gathering these figures, I was surprised to learn that the EC is now nearly 50 per cent. dependent on imported energy. That figure would increase to 55 per cent. if the United Kingdom were to abandon its deep-mine industry and instead import coal, gas and oil. If all EC hard coal production were to cease, and if current consumption rates were to continue, the level of dependency would rise to over 60 per cent.

Mr. Meale: I do not want to disturb the direction of my hon. Friend's speech, but may I ask him to dwell for a moment on the question of the people who work in coalfields throughout the world? I am thinking of the ages of workers, and so on.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I find it a little difficult to relate the remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to the contents of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take note of that.

Mr. Eadie: I understand the point that you are making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate your tolerance. However, I am dealing with points that have already been raised in the debate. As has been said, it will be a scandal if a vote is taken at 10 o'clock. Many of my hon. Friends want to speak.
There has been reference to gas imports, and some very optimistic scenarios have been put forward. It is only right that I should comment on some of them. In 1990, gas imports amounted to 81·4 million tonnes equivalent. Most


scenarios anticipate that, by the year 2010, that figure will have doubled. At the end of 1990, the European authorities removed the restrictions on the use of gas in power generation. It is likely, therefore, that there will be many new gas-fired power stations, but where will the gas come from? That question is indeed relevant to this Bill.
We could also ask about the price. For some time, it has been assumed that, except in the case of Norway, the gas will come from the Soviet Union and, to a lesser extent, from Algeria. As the energy crisis in the Soviet Union deepens, this assumption becomes questionable. For that reason, as well as for others, we should question this whole proposition. In 1989, for the first time, Soviet gas production, at 796 billion cu m, failed to meet the planned target of 820 billion cu m. The increase of 26 billion cu m from 1988 did not make up for the drop in oil, gas and nuclear production.
The collapse of Soviet oil output from the record 624 million tonnes in 1990 is forcing the Soviet Union to use more of its own gas supplies. Falling production and the deep crisis in the nuclear industry places even more pressure on the gas industry. In the wake of a series of minor strikes, coal production fell by 32 tonnes to 740 million tonnes in 1989. It fell by a further 4·8 per cent. during the first seven months of 1990, compared with the equivalent period in 1989. There has also been the Chernobyl disaster.
We must appreciate the true position about gas. The EC—that includes us—has only 2·2 per cent. of the world's gas reserves. Western Europe as a whole, at 1989 production levels, has gas reserves of 31·3 years, which is the smallest amount per region, after north America. That shows that it would be a scandal if the Bill, which would mean the burning of gas, were to go through unchallenged.
I can give the figures for gas reserves region by region. North America has 12·6 years, which is a 6·5 per cent. share of the total. South America has 75 years, which represents 5·8 per cent.; western Europe has 31·3 years, which represents 4·9 per cent.; the USSR—on which people have pinned their faith—has 53·2 years, which represents 37·6 per cent.; eastern Europe has 14 years, which represents 0·7 per cent.; Africa has 110 years, which represents 6·7 per cent.; Algeria has 72·3 years, which represents 2·9 per cent.; Asia/Australasia has 55·3 years, which represents 7·1 per cent.; the middle east has 350 years, which represents 30·7 per cent. The source for those figures is British Petroleum.
The middle east has 350 years of reserves, of which Iran has the largest share, with 12·5 per cent. of the total, followed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi, each with 4 per cent. of the total. Declining reserves and the growing import tendency are now being combined with uncertainty about prices. The belief that gas prices are being decoupled from oil prices is no longer sustainable because of the price increases following the third-world shock.
I was astonished that one Conservative Member, who argued in favour of the Bill, tried to promise that, if we allowed the Bill to go through, it would mean a decrease in electricity prices. An examination of the facts shows that to be a bogus claim. In 2010, we will be confronted with a 40 per cent. increase. Solid fuel is to some extent different.
Security of supply is a central issue. Oil reserves in western Europe have only about a 12·6-year life at current rates of gas production. Reserves stand at only 31·3 per cent., increasing the insecurity of supply.

Mr. Meale: Will my hon. Friend dwell a little more on the implications of the insecurity of the Gulf, the Soviet bloc and South America for maintaining supplies at gas stations such as the one in the Bill?

Mr. Eadie: For the convenience of the House, I skipped many of my figures, but I showed that, if gas is a diminishing supply—of all the fossil fuels, it contracts—the future of power stations is bound to be jeopardised.
Gas is a wonderful fuel. A lot can be done with it. We are fortunate to have the reserves we do. Unfortunately, we are consuming more than we are finding. The world is consuming more than it is finding. At one time, it was thought that the best way to use natural gas would be in developing the petrochemical industry—the by-products that could be obtained from it. However, we have changed our minds quite a bit on that.
Gas reserves were originally believed to be more limited than is now thought to be the case. It used to be thought that, come the late 1990s, gas reserves would be exhausted. There have been more finds, which we welcome, but there have been no really magnificent finds.
Those who are hell-bent on using gas as a means of generating electricity place much faith in the belief that, although they confess that we would not have enough indigenous gas, cheap gas would be available from the Soviet Union which could be transported by pipes running below the North sea. But that will not materialise. There is much instability in the world at the present. To some extent, the Gulf war is part of the energy production crisis.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that gas and coal reserves will eventually be exhausted. Does he not agree that the generation of electricity by nuclear power will become more important in future?

Mr. Eadie: I have taken part in many debates on the topic of nuclear power generation. The hon. Gentleman must face up to the problem that——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The real problem seems to be that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is being led astray by that intervention.

Mr. Eadie: I understand why the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) asked that question, but the alternative of nuclear power is not the one before us. I was only going to remark that nuclear power is just too unforgiving at present, and I cannot see myself ever being able to forget that.
The security of supply argument was advanced at the start of this debate in support of the Bill. Western Europe's oil reserves have a life of only 12·6 years at current production rates, and gas reserves will last for only 31·3 years. The European scenario has been projected as far ahead as 2010. World oil and gas reserves will also be quickly depleted over the next 20 years. That inherent insecurity will add to the problem of external supply, and is a central issue in formulating not only a national energy policy but an EC-wide policy.
Apart from the moral question whether or not western Europe should continue to monopolise 31 per cent. of world oil imports, the central issue of security must also be considered.

Mr. Knapman: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Hood: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but I suspect that it is more a point of frustration. It might be better if he put the point to me after the Division, when it will be easier both for the House and for me to hear.

Mr. Hood: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is certainly not a point of frustration. At the beginning of the debate, I raised a point about the credibility of the private Bill procedure. It seems strange that the three-hour debate that we were originally allowed should be cut short. The Bill has 37 clauses. Surely it is not in the interests of the House to allow such a short debate on Second Reading, and I ask you to extend it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not able to speak in the debate, and. I am sorry about that, but he did manage to make some interventions.
The hon. Gentleman's point is not a point of order for the Chair, but one that he could have made during the debate had he been called. I am sorry that he and a number of other hon. Members on both sides of the House could not be called before I accepted the closure motion.

The House having divided: Ayes 154, Noes 50.

Division No. 84]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Cope, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Curry, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beggs, Roy
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bellotti, David
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon,W.
Dunn, Bob


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Sir Anthony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Peter 
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fallon, Michael


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Butterfill, John
Forth, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carrington, Matthew
Gill, Christopher


Cash, William
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Chapman, Sydney
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Churchill, Mr
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Gregory, Conal





Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nelson, Anthony


Grist, Ian
Neubert, Sir Michael


Ground, Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Hague, William
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hanley, Jeremy
Norris, Steve


Hannam, John
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Paice, James


Harris, David
Patnick, Irvine


Haselhurst, Alan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Pawsey, James


Hayward, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hill, James
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Squire, Robin


Hunter, Andrew
Stevens, Lewis


Irvine, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Jack, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


Janman, Tim
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kilfedder, James
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thorne, Neil


Kirkwood, Archy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Knapman, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Tredinnick, David


Knox, David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Livsey, Richard
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Wallace, James


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Madel, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Mans, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Mates, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Miller, Sir Hal
Wood, Timothy


Miscampbell, Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morrison, Sir Charles
Mr. Malcolm Moss and.


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Mr. Michael Brown.




NOES


Alton, David
Lamond, James


Armstrong, Hilary
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Barron, Kevin
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maxton, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Meale, Alan


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Michael, Alun


Crowther, Stan
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Dalyell, Tam
Nellist, Dave


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dobson, Frank
Rogers, Allan


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alexander
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Fatchett, Derek
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Flynn, Paul
Vaz, Keith


Foster, Derek
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hardy, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Home Robertson, John



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Martin Redmond.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Hill Livestock

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
The regulations apply to Great Britain and will bring into effect an increase in hill livestock compensatory allowances used in less-favoured areas. An identical order for Northern Ireland has already come into effect. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present on the Government Front Bench.
The regulations concern 65,000 farmers, 52,000 of whom are in severely disadvantaged areas. The regulations would increase the rate for cattle in severely disadvantaged areas to £63·30, and for hardy breed ewes, which includes herdwicks, which have become famous as a breed in upland areas, would increase the rate to £8·75. Hardy breed ewes account for 58 per cent. of all ewes in less-favoured areas. For other ewes, the amount will increase to £4·90. In disadvantaged areas, which are slightly less difficult but still less-favoured, the rate for cattle will be £31·65 and for ewes it will be £2·45. That represents a 14 per cent. increase and a global amount of £17·5 million. It takes total public expenditure on hill livestock compensatory payments to £142 million.
I shall not rehearse the history of the payments, but I will concentrate on three or four matters that will interest hon. Members. We had some difficulties in bringing in the new proposals. The Agriculture Council agreed by qualified majority, with the United Kingdom voting against, amendments to the structural regulations in November 1989. Three of the amendments effectively concerned HLCAs. The first was the imposition of a limit of 1·4 per livestock units per hectare as a limit for payment, and a livestock unit is one cow or 6·66 recurring sheep. It also introduced a limit on full Community funding—25 per cent. in the case of Great Britain and 30 per cent. in the case of Northern Ireland—to 60 livestock units per holding, and half that amount was between 60 and 120. Finally, it permitted member states to lay down certain environmental conditions for the grants and for livestock compensatory amounts. The United Kingdom already imposes a limit of six ewes per hectare in severely disadvantaged areas and nine in disadvantaged areas, for environmental reasons to do with the intensity of grazing.
We were obliged by the Community regulations to apply the limit from the 1991 payment, but the payment in our legislation reflected 1990 numbers. In that sense it was retrospective and we had to be satisfied that the regulation concerned was directly applicable. Once that was settled, we were able to print the application forms and the guidance notes, and they went out to farmers in the week of 11 February. We have made special arrangements at the divisional offices and at the Guildford computer centre to process the applications. We can start making payments as soon as the instrument is passed in this House and in another place tomorrow. People are working weekends and overtime to process the applications as fast as we can.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The regulations come into force as the Minister said, but when will the payments be made? Will he state the time scale, because

farmers are desperate to have the much-needed cash in their pockets? Will the allowances be paid by the end of March or before?

Mr. Curry: I was about to come on to that. How much we can pay depends on how many applications we receive. Farmers have to send back their applications. In England, we have received almost 1,300 claims from the midlands and western region and we have processed 41 per cent. of them. We have received 2,600 claims from the northern region and we have processed about 26 per cent. of them. From the south-west we have received about 650 applications and have processed about 23 per cent. Altogether, we aim to have about 55 per cent. of the total payments out by the end of March. We shall turn round the others as soon as they come into the offices. That is the key.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On the same point but in relation to Wales, when can we expect payments to farmers in Wales to be completed? As the Minister knows, farm incomes in Wales are in a particularly poor state.

Mr. Curry: The forms went out on 7 February. I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman when payments will be completed, for the simple reason that that depends on farmers returning the application forms to us. They have all received their forms. As soon as they fill in the forms, we shall turn the applications round as rapidly as we possibly can. We recognise the cash flow problems, and our purpose is to get the payments out to farmers as fast as we possibly can. We have therefore put our offices on standby and they will work overtime and weekends if necessary in order to get the payments out to the farmers.
We have not increased the maximum amount payable per hectare, which is set at £62·48 in the severely disadvantaged areas and £46·86 in the disadvantaged areas. We have held that rate for two reasons. First, to have increased it would have benefited those with the highest stocking rates at the expense of the others, as the actual increase per head would have been lower. Secondly, we wished to have regard to the environmental implications of stocking rates.

Mr. James Wallace: One of my constituents reckons that he has lost about £2,000 through that rate being held. How long has the figure remained at £62·48? Is it not the case that the Minister could have put it up to a ceiling of £77·33? Even if one accepts the environmental principle, that could be preserved by index-linking the figure that he has chosen. That would at least allow some much-needed income to those who have seen a drop of £100 per head in the price of their cattle.

Mr. Curry: We faced a choice. We wanted to get the money to people who faced the most difficulty. We therefore chose to allocate the resources—which, as in all Government business, are finite—to producers in the highest hills and to increase the headage rate rather than the maximum payable per hectare. We shall of course review these matters in the autumn, as we do every year.
On the differential between the severely disadvantaged areas and the disadvantaged areas, we brought the disadvantaged areas into the scheme in 1985 and paid them at the half rate. We have maintained that differential, which reflects the severity of the natural handicaps. As I


said, a review is due in the autumn and we shall reconsider that differential with an open mind. However, I am not willing to give any guarantees on it.
With those preliminary remarks, which I have deliberately kept limited so that the maximum number of hon. Members could participate, I commend the regulations to the House.

Dr. David Clark: We welcome the fact that we are having this debate on hill livestock compensatory allowances, and we realise why the Government have allowed us to have it. We appreciate that they are in some difficulty in the upland constituency of Ribble Valley and that they feel that by blowing their trumpet tonight and extolling the virtues of their payments, they may be given some credit in that part of the world.
We welcome the debate for a much deeper reason. It allows us an opportunity to highlight the plight of the upland farmer, who is the most pressurised of farmers—and most farmers are pressurised under this Government. The Minister has made great play of the increases in payments this year. We applaud those increases. It would be churlish not to do so, but it is right to put on record the fact that they do not make up in real terms for the four years when the Government froze HLCAs. The payment that farmers get after this increase will be less in real terms than they got four years ago. Those are the years when the damage was done to upland farming and when the income of upland farmers took the greatest strain.
According to the Government's own figures, the income of upland livestock farmers dropped by a dramatic 60 per cent. between 1988 and 1990. That is too large a fall for any farmer to absorb. Income falls can be absorbed for a year or so by delaying maintenance payments, but that can go on only so long. In the upland areas it has gone on far too long. Farmers in such areas rely heavily on HLCA payments, and the difficulties are beginning to show.
The Minister almost anticipated the questions that would be pressed on him from the Opposition. Why was there a delay in payment this year? The Minister gave us a lot of baloney about European this and European that, but he knows that that is simply not on. In last year's statement, looking ahead to 1991, the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food said:
This will be our review, on our terms, about our hill problems, and we will not automatically carry through the views that have been approved by the European Community contrary to our wishes."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 160.]
Why the delay? The Minister made it clear that he would be master in his own house and that he would decide what was what. Now, the Under-Secretary of State tells us that the delay is all because of Europe. There has been a history of delay in payments. When the right hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale was Minister, he used to make the announcement in November or December each year, so that farmers knew where they were from the beginning of the incoming year. Under the present Minister, the announcement was made on 30 January last year, and this year it was made on 11 February.
I could not understand the significance of 11 February until I discovered that, on 12 February, the Minister was to address the annual general meeting of the National

Farmers Union. That was perhaps a happy coincidence, but the farmers in the uplands must be glad that at least the NFU has an annual general meeting.

Mr. William Cash: It is only a small point, but did the hon. Gentleman mean Morecambe and Lunesdale or Westmorland?

Dr. Clark: I meant the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), the previous Minister of Agriculture but one.
This is yet another example of the Minister playing a game of petty politics. He ought to treat upland farmers more seriously.
Normally, the forms are sent out at the end of December and farmers start to receive payments about the end of January. As the Minister has admitted, this year the forms were held back and were not sent out until the middle of February. As we have heard, if farmers are lucky, they will get some payment by the end of March. The Ministry gave no warning to farmers about the delay. Indeed, it was left to Opposition Members to raise the issue persistently to try to find out what was happening. Why were the forms not sent out to farmers earlier? The information required to calculate the payment is based on the details of farms as recorded on 1 January, so why the delay?
The Minister represents many upland farmers and I know that he appreciates the hardship that they face, so why was it not possible to issue part of the HLCA at the end of January and the rest later? There is a precedent for that. In the November before HLCA payments were issued in 1986, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, issued the following statement:
I am well aware that, following the exceptionally bad weather earlier this year, many farmers in the Less Favoured Areas are facing cash-flow problems. To help this, I am preparing to introduce special procedures for the 1986 HLCA payments under which all claimants will receive about 75 per cent. of their claim very shortly after submitting their application, with the balance being paid as soon as possible after 1st April 1986".
That was a sensible decision, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated the cash flow problems of 1986. If the Minister does not already know it, his farmers will tell him that, because of the Government's economic policies, farmers today, especially those in the uplands, have similar cash flow problems. Why has the Minister not treated them as sympathetically as they were treated in 1986?
Earlier today, I followed the Minister to the forest of Bowland and I had the great pleasure of meeting a farmer, Mr. Dinsdale, of Cuttock Clough farm. He has 130 hectares of difficult marginal land that goes up to the top of the trough of Bowland. On it he has 300 hardy ewes and 20 suckler cows. He is typical of many upland farmers throughout the United Kingdom. It is vital that they stay in business.
In common with many farmers in my hon. Friends' constituencies, Mr. Dinsdale has diversified to increase his resources. He has a caravan park and a clay pigeon shoot, but he is struggling to make even them pay. This year he will get a subsidy of £8·75 per ewe; last year it was £7·50. Last year he got £1,800 for his wool, but this year he will be lucky to get £1,100. As the Australian and New Zealand wool boards are pulling away from their guaranteed prices, that figure could be even lower. Mr. Dinsdale will get only between £14 and £17 for each of his ewes because,


as the Minister will be aware, the hardy breed ewes are small and usually have only one lamb at a time. Last year, such ewes fetched £34. The year before they fetched £54. This year Mr. Dinsdale will be lucky to get £17 per ewe. This year alone, Mr. Dinsdale's income will be cut by £6,000, yet the Minister will compensate with a payment of £375 extra for his sheep.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I hope that this intervention is more relevant than the previous one.

Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman is talking about matters relating to the Ribble valley, an area I know well as I was at school there for about 12 years. I therefore know that trough of Bowland well. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's view that the problems of upland farmers are the fault of the Government, the MacSharry proposals, which come from the European Commission, will work against those who have as much as 130 hectares. In other words, the Government are trying to defend people such as Mr. Dinsdale, but the Commission and the MacSharry proposals will have the opposite effect.

Dr. Clark: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention was superficial, but that one was worse. The MacSharry proposals are about the future. The hon. Gentleman has failed to grasp that we are talking about the past and the present. The MacSharry proposals have nothing to do with tonight's debate on current HLCA payments.
Mr. Dinsdale's standard of living has fallen. He has not farmed badly. He is a good farmer, but the economic conditions under which the Government have operated have made it impossible for his farm to be a healthy investment. Agriculture in the United Kingdom this year and the Government's publication confirm how steep the

decline has been for Mr. Dinsdale and other upland farmers. I stood on his farm today and he told me of two neighbours who have already quit. They are only two of the 16 farmers who are leaving their farms and land each day the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sits in Whitehall place.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will it be Labour party policy to make up the £6,000 which was the hon. Gentleman's estimate of what Mr. Dinsdale and his neighbours have lost?

Dr. Clark: I congratulate the hon. Member on making a sensible point and anticipating my very next sentence.
Why does the Minister resist the Labour party's idea of paying such farmers a green premium for managing their farms in an environmentally friendly manner? They look after their landscape; the community wants that sort of landscape and will pay for it. Last year, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave me hope. He specifically mentioned his hopes to add environmental conditions to the HLCAs. Why has he not done so? The only conditions we have are those imposed by Europe.
The Government's White Paper on the environment referred to integrating environmental and agriculture policies. It stated:
EC support schemes will be required in return to protect and, where possible, enhance the environment on their holdings ….
The conservation of the countryside can be an inherent part of good practice in livestock farming, and agricultural policy aims to ensure that basic support for agriculture will provide environmental benefits.
Bearing in mind those promises and the fact that the technical amendments in the sheep meat regime proposals from Brussels for the 1991 price review are likely to lead to a considerable cut in production subsidies for upland sheep farmers, it is imperative that other support, such as environmental payments, is brought forward. By failing to do what they promised, the Government have let down the farmer, the environment and the consumer.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have a number of hill farmers in my constituency, and only 10 days ago I met my local National Farmers Union branches and the High Peak Livestock Society, which has many members in the hill district of my constituency. When I met my hill farmers, they appeared to be content with the announcement made to the House by the Minister. But at that meeting, and subsequently, they expressed reservations and advised me that investigation of the rates of the hill livestock compensatory allowances revealed that everything was not as it seemed. It is important that the Minister should clarify those issues tonight.
In order that the House should fully understand the points that I am about to make, I should say that I understand that some rates that applied before—for example, an upper limit payment for six ewes per hectare and a controversial financial limit of £62·48 per hectare—still remain. But the Minister announced a new financial limit of 1·4 livestock units per hectare. I think that I am right about this, but if I am not I shall give way to the Minister. I understand that the limit is for the severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas at the relevant rates.
Under the old system, the farmer calculated the number of sheep and drew the relevant rate up to a maximum of six ewes per hectare. The difference between the sheep payment and the financial limit of £62·48 was then taken up by the suckler cow to the maximum financial limit. My farmers were led to believe from a copy of the Minister's announcement in the House that there was a new financial limit of 1·4 livestock units per hectare.

Mr. Richard Livsey: indicated assent.

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) nods agreement.
A livestock unit is defined as one bovine animal, namely a cow, or 6·7 ewes. It is therefore natural to assume that the new financial limit was 1·4 livestock units times the new rate for cows, which is £63·30, which comes out at £88·62. My farmers were under that impression when we met that Saturday morning at a large meeting in my constituency.
On checking with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regional office in my area, Berkeley Towers in Crewe, and with Nottingham and Wolverhampton and with the Ministry in London, my farmers were told that the old limit of £62·48 per hectare stands, and that is the figure from which they will operate. One accepts that any farmer who does not carry the number of stock required to take him to the financial limit will have an increase under the new rates, but any farmer who is stocked to the maximum rate using the HLCA criteria will not receive any increase.

Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and correct point. We should find out from the Minister whether the 14 per cent. increase that he mentioned is 14 per cent. within the parameters that the hon. Gentleman describes. Has the Minister done his sums?

Mr. Winterton: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter when winding up.
One must bear in mind the fact that the size of farm is immaterial, because the limit is financial and is attached to

the area. That means that the small farmer will be hit proportionally harder. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, the small hill farmer must be encouraged because, in the context of conservation, such farmers are important and will continue to be so.
I and, I think, many hon. Members are uncertain, and there is no doubt that many farmers in disadvantaged hill areas are also uncertain. Hill farmers in my branch of the NFU and members of the High Peak Livestock Society accept that it is one thing if rates are not raised but that it is entirely another to create the illusion of a substantial rise when that is not the case. I am sure that all hon. Members who represent farming constituencies, and especially those with hill farmers, are aware of the fall in farming incomes in less-favoured areas. They have dropped by 60 per cent. in real terms over the last two years.
That is not my figure, but the official figure published by the Ministry. The controversial figure of £63·30 has been in place since 1984. Since that time, we have encountered grave problems. One of these is inflation, much of which has been generated, directly or indirectly, by Government policy.

Miss Emma Nicholson: rose——

Mr. Winterton: I will not give way. My hon. Friend is always angry when I speak the truth. [Interruption.] Well, if she wants to be helpful, I shall be happy to give way.

Miss Nicholson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, whereas it is not good that some other product subsidies should be linked to output, a link between this subsidy and output is a very good thing in the modern world, as the upland farmers are producing the sort of meat that every dietitian says we should eat?

Mr. Winterton: I am tickled pink. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is taking my side in an argument. I entirely agree that
The mountain sheep are sweeter,
But the valley sheep are fatter".
I forget who wrote those lines, but they are part of a famous poem that I learned at school many years ago.
The situation facing the sheep farmers in the marginal areas of this country is very serious indeed. Will they get an increase, or will many of them get no increase at all? They require an honest answer from the Government. In the last two years, they have suffered huge income reductions. When will they be assisted? As well as producing food for the nation, they maintain the countryside—and the Government often profess that maintenance of the countryside is one of their high priorities.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. We have less than an hour to go, and a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. I, too, shall be tickled pink if Members take to heart my appeal for short speeches.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), with his usual ferocious independence, has told the truth. We look forward to hearing a head-on reply to the points that he has made so eloquently.
Speaking for the Labour party, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that he wanted to applaud the Government for the increase that is reflected in these regulations.
I should prefer to say that we are thankful for small mercies. Small mercies they are. The last thing that the Government deserve for any part of their agriculture policy is applause. It was amazing to hear a Labour Front Bench spokesman speak in those terms.
It is crucial that we look at HLCAs in context. I can use my constituency as a good example. Proportionately, Montgomery is the most agricultural constituency in the United Kingdom. Its dependence on HLCAs and other agriculture support mechanisms is probably as great as that of any other constituency. Let us look at what is happening to constituencies like mine. In recent years, Montgomeryshire has had low unemployment. Now, my constituency has the largest unemployment increase percentage in the whole of Wales. Between January 1990 and January 1991, unemployment rose by 48 per cent.—four times the Welsh average. The figure for men was 53 per cent. In Wales, we in Montgomeryshire have an unenviable lead of 20 per cent., but other agricultural constituencies are also badly affected. Monmouth has experienced a 26 per cent. increase in unemployment in the last year, and the figure for Brecon and Radnor is 25 per cent.
Examples are to be found also in English constituencies with a strong agricultural base. Perhaps the best one to choose is Huntingdon, which is of interest to the Government. Unemployment in that constituency has increased by 44 per cent.——

Mr. John Home Robertson: How many hill farmers are there in Huntingdon?

Mr. Carlile: Huntingdon has a strong agricultural base, and it has had a 44 per cent. increase in unemployment in the past year. The Government should face up to that.
As has been said, Welsh farming income has dropped dramatically. In 1990——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Carlile: I shall heed your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Carlile: In 1990, there was a 23 per cent. fall in Welsh farming incomes, following a 28·2 per cent. fall in 1989. Those decreases do not take account of inflation. The Welsh fall is greater than the United Kingdom average. Finished cattle prices are running at about the same level as 1990, and that means that they are below 1989 prices. Finished lamb prices are well below 1990 prices.
We are extremely concerned about the continuing delays in payments to Welsh farmers. The suckler cow premium was paid several weeks later, just before Christmas. We know what an awful mess the Government are in with the forms for hill livestock compensatory allowances. It is not good enough to blame Brussels. The Government could have produced forms that requested all the information that they needed to make HLCA

payments well before the uncertain time that they are now offering. They failed to do so. They know the effects of such delays in an industry that as many as 6,000 farmers left in 1990.
Part of the context of the regulations is, of course, the MacSharry proposals. We support the Government's rejection of those proposals as being highly discriminatory against the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said earlier. As the Government have suggested, the original MacSharry proposals penalise the more efficient producers. We are extremely concerned about the knock-on effects, especially on the livestock sector, and about changes in other sectors.
We will be interested to hear from the Minister what the Government are saying about the new proposals that have emanated—and I use the word advisedly, for they are nothing short of an emanation—from Brussels today. The proposals spell further decline in sheep, beef and milk—a 2 per cent. reduction in the support price for lamb; a 2 per cent. cut in the milk quota; a minute reduction in the green pound, which will do practically nothing to help the British farmer; and the virtual removal of the safety net for beef farmers.
Let us hear from the Minister how this very small HLCA increase fits into that context. He must confess to the House that, overall, there will be a further decline in the position of farmers in the hills of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Curry: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the budgetary discipline guidelines should or should not be observed? Is he recommending that we should or should not go through the budgetary discipline guidelines? The proposals from Mr. MacSharry, which emanate—whichever verb the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to choose—are in response to the problem of agricultural budgets exceeding their targets. Does he believe that we should or should not go through those? If he does not, we must exercise restraint; if he does, we want to know that.

Mr. Carlile: We now hear from the Minister what appears to be an acceptance of the appalling revised proposals made today. It is no use telling the farmers of Wales or any of the other uplands in the United Kingdom that they must make do with half an agriculture policy, which is all that he is offering them. We need an agriculture policy that ensures the survival of farming in the hills, for without that there will be nothing on or at the bottom of the hills, as he well knows. It is essential that the Government start planning for the future by introducing new mechanisms within the United Kingdom that include farm management contracts for farmers, country management contracts, and all the other aspects of our 10-point plan that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) described so clearly in the House in our agriculture debate a few days ago.

Mr. Curry: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question? There is a problem of an overrun on the budget. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that there should be measures to bring the budget back within its guidelines—yes or no? That is the question that Mr. MacSharry has to face. That is the question which every member of the Agriculture Council will have to face. It will not go away. It has to be answered.

Mr. Carlile: I will tell the hon. Gentleman again: the Government must produce a policy which will ensure a future for British farmers. If the budgetary disciplines are accepted in the form in which it appears we must accept them, he will have to take steps to produce a policy for the future of upland farms. He has produced no ideas at all, either in this debate or before it. I see some approval from Conservative Members for that statement. No steps at all have been produced to that effect.

Mr. Cash: rose——

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: No, there is pressure on time.
We give a guarded welcome to the announcement for HLCA rates for 1991. We are thankful for small mercies. But there are two extremely disappointing aspects. The first is the financial limits. Those financial limits have not been increased from £62·48 per hectare in the severely disadvantaged areas and £46·86 per hectare in the disadvantaged areas. That means that many producers will not be better off because of the increased rates. The EC maximum rates are £77·33 and £58 per hectare respectively. We believe that the financial limits should be moved closer, if not up to those maxima. Let the Minister tell the farmers why the British Government will not increase the limits to or near those maxima.

Mr. Curry: rose——

Mr. Carlile: I shall not give way. The Minister can reply to the debate later, and I look forward to hearing him.
Many farmers are in a catch-22 situation. They will not benefit from the increase because of their stocking densities. The new rate for hill cows is higher than the maximum stocking density per hectare. That means that hill farmers stocking more than one cow per hectare will lose out on the increases. What sort of support is that for hill farmers? Many will be blocked from benefiting from the increased level of payments. The scheme has been changed far too much and it is now full of inconsistencies.
Another severely worrying matter relates to the disadvantaged areas. The 50 per cent. rule has been retained on disadvantaged area payments. It means that producers in those areas will get only small increases which do not keep pace with inflation over the years. Again, that is an unsatisfactory aspect of the proposals.
Those of us who represent hill farming areas warn the Government that farming is in as serious a decline as that faced by the steel industry years ago and the coal industry too. We see communities faced with break-up and massive unemployment. The Government must do far more than pat themselves on the back over a small increase in HLCAs. They must come forward with a full policy for upland areas, or they will have no credibility whatever in the farming industry.

Mr. William Cash: I only wish to take up the point that has just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to support the Government in what is an extremely difficult position which has been brought about by

proposals emanating from the European Commission, not from the Government. I have the greatest sympathy with the Government's position.
The fact is that the whole of the CAP is in need of significant reform. The fund's structural problems, the way in which the hillstock farmers' difficulties have been addressed, and the problems concerning Mr. Dinsdale, which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned, turn on the way in which the situation has been orchestrated. The rules relevant to the 1950s and the 1960s are not relevant to the 1990s and the year 2000.
This afternoon, the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, examined proposals to reform the common agricultural policy. It is essential and in the interests of British farming that we get to grips with the real problem—votes in France, Germany, and Italy. Until we address that aspect, we will not resolve the GATT problem, which could bring world trade to a grinding halt. We must appeal to our friends and colleagues in Europe—although sometimes they are not so friendly—to address the issue of helping the farmers of this country, so that we may resolve the issues that arise in the GATT talks.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery would not allow me to intervene in his speech, but I draw to his attention the people who are getting substantial subventions from the Community that neither the Commission nor the Community's budget can justify. They are Bavarian pig farmers, those running small or uneconomic farms, those looking to the Commission for a social wage, and those who are not farmers at all but who run farms on a part-time basis.
The problem will not be solved by reducing it to an argument about technicalities. It is a political problem, and one that must be resolved by Community policies directed at the Community, not at the specific interests of individual countries. It will not be resolved until the Community and the Commission are prepared to grapple with the problem, and Mr. MacSharry is prepared to consider the interests of the Community as a whole, not just his own Irish farmers.
I hope that my points will be taken on board by the Commission, because there are those in this House and throughout the country who are no longer prepared to countenance the current situation.

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: The constituency that I represent is not predominately agricultural, but is has some significant and beautiful agricultural land. Much of it is in the north Pennines and is therefore used for hill farming. My constituency also includes land that was formerly given over to industries such as steel and coal, which have suffered from a lack of the intervention which agriculture has enjoyed.
The situation in Weardale is different from that in hill farming areas represented by other right hon. and hon. Members. That community has suffered many economic problems, and they have been intensified by those now confronting hill farmers. The Government's agricultural policies are threatening the future of their communities and their land.
Weardale has traditionally considered itself a working dale, embracing manufacturing and industrial activity as well as agriculture. This week sees the demise of the last of


Weardale's industrial works, in upper Weardale, and the closure of its mineral works, where mining of fluorspar has been an important activity for many of the families who, although their livelihood is based on farming, have topped up their incomes by involving at least one member in industrial work. During the past three weeks, more than 200 workers have been made redundant and the last 35 will go this week.
I have met the hill farmers numerous times. They held a meeting last night, and have written to me of their concern about the future of wool. Other hon. Members have already mentioned that, and I do not want to go into the details, but the farmers feel that that is another example of the way in which their livelihood is disappearing. Some of the hill farms in Weardale have already been sold off to Saudi Arabian princes who are interested in the shooting rights. I am not sure what the events of the past few weeks will mean for the future of that moorland; there is a slight irony there.
I want the special character of the uplands to be protected and developed, not abandoned. All the farmers tell me—and I believe them—that, unless the land is tended by farmers, it will decline, and I already see signs of that.
Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) have been raised elsewhere. There is considerable confusion about the nature of the financial reward that the Government's proposals will supposedly bring, and great concern about the delay in the provision of money and about the future structure of support and development. Many farmers genuinely feel that they have been abandoned; they are clutching at every straw presented by the Government, because there is nothing else, but every facet of their livelihood and their life in the community has been stripped away.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough to the Minister the extent of the crisis facing the communities of upper Weardale. Tonight's debate deals with just one aspect of that crisis, but it points to the critical need for a Government policy to deal with the current decline, which affects not only individuals and their families but whole communities and the future of land and land use. I hope that the Government will see the debate in the context of a range of other issues; I have not mentioned interest rates, but they are having a major effect as well.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister mentioned that sitting beside him is the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland. He has been sent over from England to look after the people of Ulster. He and I recently attended a conference at Greenmount agricultural college on the subject of the family farm. One of the main guest speakers was the EC Commissioner, Mr. Raymond MacSharry, from Sligo.
One of the startling facts that emerged from the conference is that 25 per cent. of farmers in Northern Ireland are now trading at a loss. They are losing money per animal. Most of that 25 per cent. farm in what are known as less-favoured areas. It is against that

background that we must consider the regulations that have been recommended for Great Britain and which will apply subsequently to Northern Ireland.
The background is also coloured by the fact that, with one exception in the past five years, there has been no increase in HLCAs. As several other hon. Members have said, there has also been a considerable reduction in the real income of farmers in recent years. Farmers' incomes in Northern Ireland have been reduced by 45 per cent. in the past two years.
Agriculture is in a serious state throughout the United Kingdom. We understand the point that the Minister was trying to make to Liberal Members earlier—a point that they would not accept—that there are budgetary restrictions in the European Community and that we have to evolve policies within those restrictions. It is all very well to say that we must help farmers to do this, that and the other, but we must operate within a parameter. Is the policy right within that parameter?
We have two agriculture organisations in Northern Ireland. One, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association, condemned the new HLCAs. Its spokesman, Mr. Bradley, described them as
nothing more than a pittance. It is disgraceful. It doesn't take any account of inflation and the fact that hill farmers are worse off today than they were five years ago … Farm incomes have fallen by 45 per cent.
The larger of the two organisations is the Ulster Farmers Union. It welcomed the increases for cows and sheep, but it expressed some reservations.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smooth ministerial statement today disguised the pain and suffering that will come soon to farming families who have already experienced lower incomes from livestock sales? Now, because of financial limits, our efficient livestock farmers will have lower incomes disguised as an increase.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. When the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tried to sell the increased HLCA payments, he said that they would mean an extra £2·7 million for the farmers of Northern Ireland. He ignored the financial limit per hectare. There might not actually be a £2·7 million benefit to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) was right to emphasise that point.
The Ulster Farmers Union stated that it is
extremely concerned that the United Kingdom Government has not increased the Financial Limit per hectare in either the old or new less favoured areas. This will probably pose a problem for smaller farmers with intensive stocking rates.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is the point.

Mr. Taylor: I am glad that Tory Members agree with me.
I am not sure whether the Minister is speaking only for Great Britain tonight or for the United Kingdom as a whole, but I want to ask several questions that apply to the United Kingdom. The Minister's presentation of the deplorable delay in the introduction of the increases in HLCAs was a little too smooth. We should had have them towards the end of last year, but we are getting them three months later. We must have a thorough explanation tonight because farmers are not satisfied with what they have heard and with the reasons that have been given for the delay. Is the delay due to the Government's ineptitude, or is it entirely the responsibility of the European


Community? We need a firm answer. Farmers are losing money. Some 25 per cent. of them are running their farms at a loss, and the delay in the announcement of HLCAs is deplorable.
How quickly will the payments be released to our applicants in Northern Ireland? Will it be done in a matter of days or weeks? As there has been such a delay, we want a special effort to be made to ensure that payments are released as quickly as possible to try to aid the cash flow in hill areas in Northern Ireland and in less-favoured areas.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My concern is obviously about Scotland, but my colleagues in Plaid Cymru have expressed their great worry about problems in Wales. Hon. Members have heard tonight that there are common problems throughout every part of hill and uplands agriculture. That industry is crying out for Government action. I hope that we shall hear more than we have heard tonight if matters are to be handled properly for that important sector of the economy.
I hope that the Government realise how imperative it is to get money into the hills and upland areas. Farmers are now facing their lowest incomes in real terms since the second world war, at a time of high interest rates and rising costs. The result is that record numbers of people are leaving the industry. Nowhere are the problems more evident than in the livestock sector, which is being hit hardest. Farmers in the hills and uplands have no alternative but to produce livestock.
Given the importance of that sector in terms of employment, the economy and its role in rural communities, why is there no commitment to those areas and why is there no support? I am concerned that, because of the state of the industry, we may be about to see modern-day clearances of the hills and upland areas of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We must add to those problems the shadow of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the common agricultural policy proposals. The industry is in trouble, and it is looking for support and action, but it has seen no sign of them from the Government.
Instead of a clear policy, through no fault of their own, our farmers get high interest rates to suit the overheated economy of southern England. Instead of getting assistance, they find that they are hit with falling incomes and rising costs. The allowances are welcome, but they are inadequate to meet the needs of the industry if we want that industry to remain and thrive in rural communities. Hill and upland farmers are crucial to the survival of Scotland's rural communities. They are entitled to ask what future and what commitment the Government see for them. There has been precious little so far.
Why have the HLCAs been delayed yet again? The industry is crying out for income to tide it over its current massive cash flow problems. The Government are perfectly willing to spend massive amounts on weapons of war or on sweeteners for privatisation and all the other items that they consider a priority. It is time that they considered hill and upland farmers and agriculture to be a priority. Much smaller amounts could then bring about massive rewards for the country in terms of food

production and a saving in imports and thereby ensure the future of rural communities. Why has the staggered delay been allowed?
I have asked the Minister when payments would be made, and he said that he expected that 55 per cent., of payments would be made by the end of March in England and Wales—that is, if I heard him correctly. He is saying that nearly half the payments will not be made for more than one month. That is totally unacceptable, given the cash flow difficulties facing the industry.
The Minister said that part of the problem was that the farmers had not submitted the forms, but he admitted that the processing figures showed that there was a major difficulty in the Ministry's bureaucracy. He said that, as at 22 February, only 41 per cent. of the forms received in one region had been processed. By definition, therefore, 59 per cent. had not been processed. In two other English regions, 73 per cent. and 77 per cent. respectively had not been processed. In the light of the bureaucratic problem, can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the payments will be made as soon as possible? A delay until the end of March is too long, given the cash flow problems facing the industry.
Because of the cash flow problems in the industry, I am worried about how far the HLCAs will stretch. Problems are linked. As the Minister is aware, knackeries are closing. Hill and upland farmers in many areas are faced with the problem of getting rid of dead or fallen stock when there is no local knackery to which to send the animals. The extra costs will be borne by the industry. What are the Government doing to assist it?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What about transport?

Mr. Welsh: Indeed. Yet another problem is offloaded on to the industry, but there is no sign of any Government action or any acknowledgment of the problem. The United Kingdom is in the minority of European countries in not providing some form of government assistance. It is a matter of priorities. If the Government consider that agriculture, especially the hill and upland sectors, is a priority, the industry could be given a shot in the arm and the future of the industry and the rural communities that it serves could be secured with expenditure of a relatively small amount.
My plea is that the Government should get cash to the hills and uplands as fast as possible. The livestock industry is in trouble and deserves urgent action.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Although I represent Cannock Chase in the heart of the midlands, which rises to an elevation of 800 ft, I do not claim today to speak on behalf of a constituency interest. I hope that the House will allow me this indulgence. As I come from a borders farming family and am the grandson of a borders farmer, over the past eight years I have had my ear bent by my family——

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: And by a close neighbour.

Mr. Howarth: Yes. It therefore did not seem inappropriate to raise these points. The Douglases have been the longest-serving tenants on the Duke of Roxburgh estate—I think that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) knows only too well what I mean—going back beyond 1700. When I go to the borders, I feel a sense of participating in a long and honourable tradition.
As we all know, whatever constituency we represent, farmers have been having a tough time in recent years. Over the decades, they have been urged by us all, and particularly their political masters, to produce ever more food, to invest, to mechanise and to become more efficient, and they have done so with considerable effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) told us where the problem lies—not with the efficiency of the United Kingdom agricultural community but with our continental partners' desire to subsidise inefficient farming practices on the continent. I am sure that we all agree.
I requested my uncle's views and, writing to me shortly before Christmas, he said:
Since 50 years ago we have been begged, pressed and, sometimes, forced to increase production and I suggest that no industry has done just that any better. We were also encouraged to borrow vast sums of money to enable us to do that, and many of us have done so. Suddenly about four years ago the country and Western Europe wakened up to the fact that most of what we'd been pressed to produce was not over-produced, with the result that we've been faced with colossal drops in prices, coupled with payments for interest on borrowed money at rates of interest far in excess of anything that could be foreseen when the money was borrowed.
My uncle adds that his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), will be able to substantiate what he has written. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be participating in the debate, but I am sure that he will acknowledge what my uncle wrote.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the British farmer has contributed to the surpluses to an extremely limited extent? Farmers in other countries in the Community have created the surpluses.

Mr. Howarth: I think that my hon. Friend is right, but I do not claim to be an expert on these matters.
It is to the Government's credit that they have sought to tackle the problem of excess production while representing to the best possible extent the interests of the British farmer. It has not been easy to combine those tasks.
We know that prices to farmers have fallen dramatically, while their costs have increased relentlessly. At the same time, farmers have become more efficient. The example of my own family is that, in 1928, two farms employed 10 people but today they employ only three. It is the farmer who undertakes most of the work on the farms. No one can accuse farmers of having been inefficient.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be aware that average stock prices at Hawick auction show that between 1989 and 1990 the price of black-faced warranted ewes fell by no less than £5—a 20 per cent. fall in one year. The price last year was lower than it was in 1984. That shows the difficulties that the farming community has been facing.
Difficulties have arisen because farmers have switched to Iamb from beef. My hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well that beef has been more difficult to sell than lamb in the recent past, although I eat beef—and British beef to boot—and I understand that we in the midlands are eating beef once again.
I say to the House what I have said to my family face to face—that, when manufacturers find that there is no market for their products, they also find that there is no

intervention fund to buy their surplus products. The result is that they go out of business. I am not suggesting that farmers should go out of business, but farmers are not alone in experiencing difficulties.
I understand that the rate for hill ewes has increased much more than that for upland ewes. I am told that upland ewes demand rather more tending than hill ewes. I shall be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that observation.
There is a strong case for incentives to keep hill farmers on the hills. Farmers are best conservators in Britain, and rural communities add enormously to our heritage. Future generations will not forgive us if we allow ourselves to be steamrollered by inefficient continental farmers into operating a regime in the United Kingdom which has the effect of destroying important rural communities and the contribution that they have to make to our national life.

Mr. John Home Robertston: That was a speech from an hon. Member who expects to have to return to the hills after the next general election. I, too, have the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) as my Member of Parliament. We all have crosses to bear in this life, and he is mine.
Before I go any further, I should perhaps declare an interest in a hill farm in the Lammermuirs. I also represent several hill farmers in the Lammermuir hills. I confirm what has been said by members of all parties who have taken part in the debate. Beyond any shadow of doubt, there is a crisis in the economy of the hill and upland areas throughout the United Kingdom

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.

Mr. Home Robertson: I have declared an interest. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has caught my attention. I was fascinated when he suggested that the Liberal Democrats would extend hill livestock compensatory allowances to Huntingdonshire. I am not sure whether he knows what is the highest point in Huntingdonshire, but if his party thinks that it will win Huntingdonshire by promising hill livestock compensatory allowances to its farmers, they have problems. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should contain himself just now.
There is a crisis in the economy of the hills and uplands. The Minister stands accused of a con trick. The Government say that they are increasing the allowances but, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made abundantly clear, they are taking the money away with the other hand by applying the stocking rate restrictions. To make things worse, there has been a significant delay in making the payments. Delay in making payments to an industry which is facing such severe problems is bad news. It is a heavily indebted industry, and interest rates are high.
I wonder what proportion of the money will go straight to the banks when it is eventually paid. So many of the hill farmers are heavily indebted, and they will simply use the money to reduce their overdrafts. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to the special problem in the Ribble valley area. Perhaps one way of overcoming the problem of the delay would be for the English National Farmers Union to bring forward its


annual general meeting and compel the Minister of Agriculture to come along and make his statement a little earlier. Perhaps farmers would get their money a little sooner. I offer that merely as a suggestion.
The allowances are just another chapter in a shameful history of neglect of rural Britain by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, rural communities throughout the United Kingdom are being affected. The Government's neglect of the industry is shameful. Every time that I take part in an agriculture debate, I remind the House and the farming industry that many farmers say that they always do better under a Labour Government. That has been true, and it will be true again shortly.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I wish to make only a few points and to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about stocking rates and the capping of the total amount of HLCA available at £62·48 and the other figures that he mentioned. There is no doubt that, in one sense, the Minister has misled us here this evening. He said that the amount had been fixed for environmental reasons, and that keeping the figure down would have a good environmental impact. The problem is that farmers are not being given an environmental payment in order to make up for that level of capping.
If the Minister is not prepared to increase the amount to the maximum of £77, he should compensate farmers for the difference between the two amounts, which by my arithmetic would be £15 per hectare, to conserve the environment. The Minister cannot have it both ways: by not allowing the £15 per hectare, he is creating an immense social problem in the uplands. My constituency is more akin to a continent than a constituency. It is 92 miles long. We have 16 ewes for every person in the constituency. We depend very much on our hill livestock compensatory payments. Yet farmers are being capped and are not being compensated for looking after the environment.
As we know, the upland farmers are the best conservationists in the country. The single sons of hill farmers in my constituency can no longer survive on the meagre pittance being provided. The recent figures from Aberystwyth in the farm management survey show that Welsh upland farms of 175 acres or less have an income of £2,000 a year, and farms of 175-plus acres have £4,000 a year. No one can live on such incomes. That is equal to a crisis.
The crisis is compounded by the fact that, in Wales in the last two years, farm incomes have dropped by 41 per cent.; they have nearly halved. The Secretary of State for Wales said in the Welsh Grand Committee last week that HLCAs amounted to £37 million. The drop of 41 per cent. in incomes equals £32 million. We are on the road to nowhere. We are on the road to depopulation, back to the 1920s and 1930s, with no young people left in the upland areas.
The Government must have a coherent policy. Of course we need to stay within the EC budget, but that is not the point. We need major reforms. We may have to scrap intervention and bring back deficiency payments to get the product on to the market, so that the consumer can

buy it at a reduced price. We have to do something about half the budget that does not get to farmers. We must put more of that money back into farmers' pockets.

Mr. Curry: Much passion has been raised in the debate. I understand that. I represent hill farmers myself and I share the concerns of Opposition Members and of my hon. Friends. None of us, I hope, will compete in our concern for upland farmers, both in their role as producers and in their role as guardians of the countryside. The difference is that we have responsibility for government. We also have to act within a budget. There is no way out of that; we cannot escape from it. The budget is laid down in the Community, and the House, in general terms, subscribes to it. We cannot get away from it by saying that we will pretend that disciplines do not exist. The Liberal Democrats want to keep multiplying the expenditure. Everything they said in the debate would result in a multiplication of agriculture expenditure.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the increase is inadequate. Everybody would like more, but we have to allocate the resources. In the early years to which he referred, the market delivered a reasonable livelihood because it was a time of rapid expansion, particularly in exports. Prices were buoyant. The point of the scheme is to compensate for the disadvantaged character of the neighbourhood. It is not designed specifically as a mechanism to compensate for shortfalls in the marketplace. It is different from a price support mechanism, which means that we have spent a fortune intervening on beef.
The hon. Gentleman knows why there has been a delay. We could not send the forms out earlier because we could not give the instructions and the guidance to go with them until we sorted out the problem about how the scheme would apply. I regret that. It was a nuisance. It has been a pain for everybody, but we had to face that difficulty. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) paid advances. It was not a happy experience. One reason that we are not doing it again is that it was such a difficult experience. It took so long to complete the payments that some farmers were longer getting the total payment than they would have been if we had not paid advances.
I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's encounter with Mr. Dinsdale. When I am in that part of the world tomorrow, I shall try to find Mr. Dinsdale, because I am anxious to hear from him a more precise account of the conversation than the hon. Member for South Shields was willing to give. I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman told Mr. Dinsdale that he would pay more on the HLCAs as they stand. That is the question before us. Would he pay more as they stand—or was he going to present Mr. Dinsdale with a marvellous bran tub of environmental measures and invite him to plunge in his arm, the idea being that every farmer would come out with a prize labelled as an environmental payment?
It is easy to say that we should pay farmers to look after the environment. In my constituency and that of many hon. Members, it is difficult to see what else farmers could do in terms of good husbandry. We have already said that farmers look after the environment. If we were to pay farmers for what they are already doing, we should need to


define that payment precisely in terms of its budget and its objectives. We shall undertake that process, but it is no policy simply to say, "We shall not tell you whether you will get any more under existing policies; we shall invent something else that may or may not serve as a pretext to pay more."
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a characteristic speech, and challenged me to give the full facts. To avoid being so accused again, let me make it absolutely clear that we have not increased the maximum amount payable per hectare—it is set at £62·48 in the severely disadvantaged areas and at £46·86 in the disadvantaged areas. We have held payments at those levels because, if we have limited resources, we choose not to give them to farmers stocking at the highest densities. I acknowledge that some farmers will not receive any increased payment. We will give resources to those who do not stock at the highest densities. That will increase commensurately the headage payments available to those farmers.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) must make up his mind about whether the Liberal Democrats will live within the budgetary framework of the Community.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Of course.

Mr. Curry: Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer that question. He said that his party would invent all sorts of super new policies. Here and now the budget has overrun and we are faced with proposals from Mr. MacSharry which we must tackle. On Monday, we must start to debate those proposals. I want to know whether we have the support of the Liberal Democrats for the budgetary guideline we issued. The majority of the House applauded that guideline. Those who did not said that it was inadequate. We had to bring agriculture expenditure under some sort of control——

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Curry: No, I gave way generously before.
We are all agreed that we had to have some type of budgetary discipline, but now it comes to the test are we to say, "Well, let's not bother for the moment"?

Mr. Wallace: rose——

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has had his say. I deliberately limited my remarks to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak.

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is afraid to give way.

Mr. Curry: Certainly not, but I shall not be goaded. The hon. Gentleman can sit and make gestures to his heart's content, but he will not influence me.
The Liberal Democrats have not answered the question about what they would do about the budgetary restraints which, whether we like them or not, exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned some of the fundamental problems—the current surplus, the need to change the common agricultural policy and the MacSharry proposals. I deliberately refrained from embarking on those proposals as they are not the subject of the debate and we all had our say on them some time ago. If pressed, however, I can tell the House that our position on them has not changed. We do not find them acceptable, particularly as they do not take us towards the marketplace. Rather, they do the opposite. I do not believe that farmers want to be taken on a magical mystery tour that takes them further and further away from that marketplace. That is not the answer to the agriculture crisis.
We already have a surplus, which is hanging over the market. Many Opposition Members are willing to say how much agriculture policy costs the average family per week or per month. They claim that we must bring it under control, but at the same time they say that more money should be directed at farmers. One must make up one's mind what one wants in this world. We cannot have it both ways. We must tackle the problem.
Hon. Members want to know why the Government do not pay the maximum allowance permitted under the Community regulations. The answer is simple—money. If we were to pay at the maximum, we estimate that that would be equivalent to an extra £60 million of public expenditure. We do not believe that it would be justifiable to pay that in present circumstances. If the hon. Member for South Shields is saying that he would pay it, I am interested to clock up the expenditure to which he will commit his party. I am willing to add that to my running count of the pledges that have been made by at least half the members of the Labour party and give the information to the other Labour party members who say that they will exercise restraint in budgetary matters when their party comes to power, in that unlikely event.
I can answer precisely one question asked by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). In Northern Ireland it is hoped and intended that 85 per cent. will be paid by the end of April. That is the target figure for Northern Ireland and the Department officials are geared up to do that. We must not forget that there are 65,000 claimants and that there is much work to do. We must undertake the process properly. We cannot simply act and hope, afterwards, that we got it right because the possibilities for fraud and inaccuracy are too great.
We support farmers. We have shown that we support farmers. We have introduced a raft of measures in favour of farmers. The Government will not stand accused of failing them. The farmers do not believe that, and I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Oldchurch Hospital, Romford

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Sir Michael Neubert: I have the great good fortune to raise for debate tonight the subject of Oldchurch hospital in my constituency. At a meeting of the Barking, Havering and Brentwood health authority tomorrow, a decision will be taken that could be critical for the hospital's future. The authority has proposed that, in the longer term, our district should be served by one general hospital on a single site at Harold Wood in the neighbouring constituency of Upminster. To his credit, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), who unfortunately cannot be here tonight, is as opposed to the proposal as am I and my other Havering colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) who, within the short time allowed, and subject to catching your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, will contribute later.
The hon. Members for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) are also very much opposed to the proposal, because large numbers of their constituents look to Oldchurch hospital for their medical treatment. Of the six hon. Members who represent the district, only my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) is other than categorical in his condemnation of the proposal. The majority of his constituents live closer to Harold Wood than to Oldchurch hospital.
It could be said that the proposal has few friends. During the consultation period, which expired at the end of January, the community health council, the London boroughs of Havering and of Barking and Dagenham, trade unions, doctors, patients, other organisations and members of the public have been loud in their disapproval.
The purpose of tonight's short debate is twofold: first, to bring home to the Minister, whose presence at this late hour is much appreciated, the strong feelings of people in the district on the proposal; secondly, to take a last opportunity, at the eleventh hour, to ensure that the health authority's decision tomorrow reflects the widespread opposition to the proposal. It would make a mockery of consultation were such a universal thumbs-down to be disregarded.
The reasons for the hostility of the public to the proposal are relatively straightforward. The Barking, Havering and Brentwood district is one of the largest in the country; from memory, I believe that it is the largest in London. It serves a population of 453,000 people. The Barking and Dagenham end of that district has an above average incidence of illness and a degree of social deprivation. In general terms, the population there has a high morbidity and a low mobility.
The combination of those two factors makes the prospect of people there having to go another four or five miles for hospital treatment unacceptable to them arid to many others. Such a distance may seem insignificant to people who live in country areas, but in highly populated urban areas it surely makes sense to provide services that are as close as possible to the people. That certainly holds true when the densest population coincides with the greatest need.
In seeking the retention of Oldchurch hospital, I am not speaking only for my constituents. However, I strongly believe that services should be local. Excellence is not the

only criterion; convenience and accessibility are also important, and the right balance must be struck. Contrived formulas and artificial weightings have been devised to lead to the conclusion that there should be only one general hospital on a single site in our district. That is being challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) and me.
The North East Thames regional health authority intends by strategic decision to approve a new district general hospital just across the western boundary in the neighbouring district of Goodmayes. That seems to pre-empt the opinion of people in our area about the provision of local hospital services. That opinion can broadly be summed up by saying that they would like to retain Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospital.
Oldchurch hospital is a Victorian workhouse-type hospital, but it provides a wide range of services, including regional specialties, to my constituents and to many other people in the area. It has attracted dedicated, high-calibre specialists who have been able to benefit from the interdisciplinary contacts that are established at Oldchurch. Despite being under constant threat from two quarters, they have engaged in many innovative and imaginative ventures. It is surprising that the success and popularity of the hospital should be so consistently challenged.
The first threat is from the London teaching hospitals, which resent the pretensions of Oldchurch hospital and would like to have its patients to boost their depopulated clinics. The second threat is from regional administrators, who cannot accept what they see as inadequate buildings and a cramped location but would prefer a brand new extension development to modern standards on a green field site. However, that would be at the expense of convenience and accessibility. In spite of those threats, Oldchurch hospital has prospered.
As it is just past midnight, I can announce that it is 17 years ago today that I entered the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is ironic that much of my time here has been spent in fighting threats to this much-loved institution in my constituency. There have been two proposals to close the neurosurgical unit, and two proposals to close the radiotherapy unit. On each occasion, a campaign was mounted to save the units. Now it is proposed that the whole hospital be closed, and that is a matter for regret.
I have received very few complaints about the treatment of patients at Oldchurch or about the standards of medical treatment or nursing. On the contrary, the vast majority of the complaints that I receive concern the fact that people cannot get an appointment or treatment soon enough. One imagines that that situation would not be improved by the closure of the hospital. Our case is that the hospital should certainly be allowed to continue its present service to the people of the area.
It is astonishing that, despite all the threats, the hospital's spirit is undiminished, and its confidence in its own future unflagging. Oldchurch has expressed an interest in achieving the status of a self-governing trust, and the Secretary of State has given approval for the further preparation of its plans. We must hope that the future will lie in that direction. In the meantime, we face the proposal that the hospital be closed, and the services provided on a single site elsewhere. As I have explained, that is not acceptable, either to the majority of Members of this House or to the majority of people in my area.
Our hope must be that the authority that runs hospital services in the area will take account of those views before making any decision. What the people in my constituency want is treatment of a good standard—not necessarily the very best—provided within a reasonable distance of their homes. Oldchurch hospital has provided such treatment in the past, and continues to do so, and any proposal that it should not be allowed to do so in the future will be vigorously and rightly resisted.

Mr. Robin Squire: As in the past, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) has presented a sterling and forthright case in defence of Oldchurch hospital. I know he will agree that it is sad that this is not the first time we have had to defend that excellent hospital, which so many local people support in the most practical way possible—by going there for operations and medical treatment. It seems to me that that is the single most telling and lasting tribute to the hospital. It is sad that, whatever the structure of the health service, we have from time to time to put to Ministers points in defence of the hospital.
My hon. Friend sketched the background very well, and I do not want to be repetitious. However, I should like, in the short time available, to stress the breadth of opposition to this proposal. I shall do so in no particular order. Let me kick off with extracts from a letter from Mr. MacLellan, a senior consultant orthopaedic surgeon at Oldchurch hospital, to the services planning manager of the health authority. I think that the extracts, short though they are, will give the flavour. Mr. MacLellan says:
The comments that you have made confirm in my mind the clearly held impression that the statistics prepared in your document 'A Blueprint for Better Health Care' are an attempt to give scientific or pseudo-scientific validation for a completely bogus exercise in health care planning.
No objective data has been collected about mortality or morbidity related to the clinical services in Harold Wood or Oldchurch ….
While there were representatives of both acute units at the meetings that gave rise to this document, these representatives were not briefed by individual departments within either hospital to speak on their behalf. No representatives of the trauma and orthopaedic service at Oldchurch were present, and since we carry the bulk of the trauma workload for the district it seems extraordinary that you believe yourself to be in any position to make judgments about quality of service at our site as compared with any of the other sites.
As that was written by a consultant at the hospital, it might be said to be predictable. As has been said in other contexts over the years, "He would say that, wouldn't he?" Nonetheless, it is worth recording.
I turn now the Barking and Havering family health service authority, which has taken the trouble to submit its own formal comments, such is its concern at the nature of the document. Again, my hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased to know that I intend to be brief. It states:
No analysis of the need for secondary care services is provided. The document gives the appearance of a provider not needs led plan, concentrating reasons for change as it does on buildings and management problems. A needs based analysis might have significantly influenced the weighting in favour of a more accessible site in the district. The document did not include an analysis of the impact of the proposals on primary and community care. It is the FHSA opinion that these will be substantial.
Under the heading "Conclusion", the document states:

The document does not provide information on developments in community support services that will be essential if the services are centralised irrespective of the site. A substantial development is needed to support the existing services. The FHSA is concerned by the lack of analysis of the impact on primary health care services. The planning of a new hospital provides major opportunities to consider the best mix of services that are needed to ensure optimum health of the population.
As it rightly says:
This cannot be done by looking at the hospital services alone.
What we have is an isolated discussion document looking purely at the physical structures, without looking at the way in which health should logically develop over the next 10 years. It is worth highlighting the fact that both the major local authorities in the area—the London borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London borough of Havering—have produced documents setting out precisely why the document is a bad one. In particular, Havering stresses that, for many people in Havering, let alone in Barking and Dagenham, to site a hospital at Harold Wood at the eastern end of the district health authority can only provide major problems for many of the patients who would need to get there.
Word has reached me during the past couple of days of concern at Oldchurch hospital that there is to be a review by the district health authority of the acute units, and that a possible management restructuring is in the air which, if it proceeds—no consultation is required for that—would produce one overall unit amid great fears that Oldchurch and Rush Green hospitals would be run down, presumably for the general benefit of Harold Wood. That is not the way to proceed.
I ask the Minister not only to deal with our initial fears, but to consider carefully whether a telephone call tomorrow morning to the district health authority, to tell it to desist from this unnecessary, irrelevant and expensive exercise, would not save a considerable sum of money for the health authority.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) and for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) are to be congratulated on raising this subject this evening on behalf of their constituents, and on delivering to the House a clear message that no one reading this debate could have any reason to misunderstand. It is no more than I would have expected from my hon. Friends, both of whom have been colleagues for a long time and co-campaigners in various campaigns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford was a senior, experienced and distinguished Whip when I first joined the Whips Office three and a half years ago. He used to have a notice by his desk which said, "This year Romford, next year the world," or words to that effect. This evening, he has given the House a demonstration of the effectiveness of his thinking on behalf of his constituents and of his campaign over 17 years to ensure that the importance of Oldchurch hospital in the health care of his constituents is understood by those who need to know.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the subject today, because not only has that allowed him to celebrate his 17 years in Parliament by continuing to campaign on behalf of his constituents; it has also allowed him to ensure


that the members of the health authority go to their meeting tomorrow with his words and those of our hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch ringing in their ears.
They thought that the consultation process ended on 31 January, and this will come as a reminder of the views of my hon. Friends, both of whom have written to the health authority to express their views formally. Their speeches this evening should have served to dispel any remaining doubt in the minds of members of the health authority.
This evening's debate allows me to say that I am sorry that I was unable to fulfil the engagement that I had a few weeks ago in my hon. Friend's constituency, I think at the hospital. I hope that it will be possible to reinstate that. I have no doubt that if it is reinstated the message that my hon. Friends have brought to the House this evening will once again be reinforced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch suggested that I could spend some time tomorrow morning on the telephone communicating further the messages of my hon. Friends and adding to it a message of my own that the health authority should not proceed tomorrow with the proposal that we are discussing. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that I shall not be doing that, not because there are no circumstances in which I might find it in myself to agree with my hon. Friend but because—this is an important principle—the only good way to manage an organisation which employs a million people and absorbs £30 billion of public expenditure is through a management structure, within which we encourage management decisions to be taken as far down the line as is practicable.
We run a delegated system of management, and if that policy is to have real effect, it is important that managers are encouraged to make real decisions and to carry responsibility for them without feeling that their every decision is subject to Ministers looking over their shoulder and jogging their elbows. Therefore, I shall not be ringing the health authority tomorrow morning to communicate the message that my hon. Friends would understandably wish me to.
Nor am I in a position this evening to be able to make clear what the Government's attitude would be if in certain circumstances the proposal ended on a Minister's desk. I will explain briefly why that is. I have explained the importance that we attach to the system of delegated management: the result of that is that a decision of this nature ends up on a Minister's desk only if it has proved impossible for the different agencies within the health authority locally to reach agreement on how the proposal should proceed.
If, therefore, the health authority were to confirm its proposal to concentrate health care on the Harold Wood site, it would be for the CHC to decide whether it wished to lodge its firm opposition to that proposal. If the CHC were to take that course, the disagreement between the health authority and the CHC would go to the regional health authority for a further opinion. If the regional health authority were to support the district health authority but the CHC maintained its opposition to the united view of the regional and district authorities, the proposal would come to a Minister for a decision.
I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand that, if a Minister had to make a decision between the CHC proposal and the management proposal, he would want to

do so without having a commitment given in the House hanging around his neck, making it impossible for him to approach the subject with an open mind, as he should.
I give my hon. Friends the clear undertaking that, if it proved impossible for the various agencies that I have described to reach a decision locally, I would go to considerable trouble to ensure that the responsible Minister fully understood the concerns of my hon. Friends' constituents as well as the arguments advanced by the health authority. Therefore, I am not able to describe precisely this evening how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would use his discretion if the proposal came before him for a decision.
I can comment on one or two of my hon. Friends' comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford was particularly concerned that the convenience and accessibility of health care is considered a relevant consideration and that the creation of ivory towers is not a sufficient argument by itself to support a particular policy. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we agree. We run the health service for the benefit of its patients, not for that of its doctors—still less for the benefit of the academicians. Convenience and accessibility are important factors in deciding the pattern of health care in any locality.
My hon. Friend stressed the dangers that are attached to grandiose ambitions, as opposed to the more humdrum development of health care in a particular locality. It is one of the sins of traditional health service management that it has regarded capital as a free good. It is to address the problem of excessively grandiose schemes not firmly based in local needs that we are introducing from 1 April the principle of capital charging, which will ensure that any addition to the capital stock of a particular district is recognised to be the cost that it is, so that any authority planning to absorb more capital in the provision of health care will take account of the capital, as well as revenue cost, that it incurs from its investment decisions. I hope that will reduce the attractiveness of highly capital-intensive solutions to particular local problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch stressed the importance that he attaches to a firmly based local assessment of health needs in planning for the future. He quoted in support the views of the local FHSA. Again, not only do I agree, but that is one of the basic propositions on which the Government's reforms from 1 April are founded. My hon. Friends should need no reassurance from me, because the definition of local health need and the use of the contracting system to design a pattern of provision that will meet identified local health needs is written into the statute for which all three of us voted last year. Those are the criteria that management will increasingly use in their areas.
I will enter a caveat by way of balance, and stress that, as we think about the development of provision over the health service as a whole, we must acknowledge that a constant factor is the declining need for acute beds. Modern medicine allows us to treat more patients, more quickly, with fewer acute beds. Merely because traditional medicine needed 500 or 600 beds in a particular locality, that does not mean that, in the next 10 years, we shall continue to need the same level of acute bed provision. Many conditions that once required three weeks' hospital stay can now be treated either on a day case basis, or without the need for surgery or hospitalisation at all. That


must be borne in mind, particularly when considering major capital investment that will commit the health service to capital costs for a generation ahead.
Another factor that makes more complex the situation in which my hon. Friends' constituents find themselves is that both Old Church and Harold Wood hospitals are preparing applications for trust status. They are expected

by the end of April, and I should emphasise that nothing that is happening as a result of the consultation process launched by the district health authority can limit the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to accept either or both those applications or——

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.